Talk:Gartner hype cycle/Archives/2011

"Through"

What's the meaning of "through of disillusionment" in the graph!? I always thought "through" was a preposition... The only dictionary I found mentioning "through" as a noun says it means "tombstone", but that meaning doesn't seem to fit here. The German translation of this article has "Tal" (= "valley"), which intuitively looks like a correct translation. Could some mother-tongue contributor please either substitute "through" with a more common synonim or, if this is not possible, explain the term within the text? Thanks. 93.62.144.26 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The word is spelled without an "h" -- it is "trough", meaning a place that is lower than its surroundings, especially a long thin place. "Valley" is a synonym. In case you are interested, it is sometimes pronounced to rhyme with "cough" (coff) and sometimes with "cow". rc (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Untitled entry

I am experiencing a trough of disillusionment about this graph.

76.191.219.159 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've come across this particular idea from two different sources; one was a 2005 Gartner update article and the other was one of my classes. In the class, we were calling it something to the effect of the back of the wave phenomenon. I can help but feel like Gartner might have taken an old idea and put its name on it, i.e. intellectual dishonesty. Does anyone know of an older source? Or is Gartner really the group that put the idea out in the first place?

This page should be merged with Gartner's Hype Cycle --84.112.16.84

Damped sine wave

This curve looks a lot like this:

http://protodesign-inc.com/doc/Calc/Example_4.htm

which is a damped sine wave - there's more on the vibration page in Wikipedia.

76.226.143.9 (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

There have been numerous criticisms of the hype curve (it's not a cycle).

Here are some clues (first published in my own blog) about the degree of rigour and empirical support underpinning Gartner's analysis.

• Clue Number One: All technologies appear to have the same eventual outcome.

• Clue Number Two: All the points are perfectly on the line. To a scientific mind, this indicates that the coordinates are not based on any real objective measurement, and that the curve itself is not subject to scientific investigation or calibration. The curve itself is based on a standard engineering pattern.

• Clue Number Three: The shape of the line has not altered (or accelerated) in ten years. But all the evidence points to a shifting (shrinking) curve. For one thing, technology studies suggest that the half-life of new technologies is getting shorter. (This is sometimes known as the Red Queen Effect.) Furthermore, we might expect the quantity of attention received by each technology to be affected by the number of technologies competing for attention - and since this is increasing, the quantity and/or duration of hype might be reduced - in other words the hype curve getting steeper. (Surely technologies used to remain at the top of the hype curve for longer than they do today?)

Weinberg, Gerald (September 5, 2003), HypeCycle, AYE Conference, retrieved 2009-08-12 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Aranda, Jorge (October 22, 2006), Cheap shots at the Gartner Hype Curve, retrieved 2009-08-12{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Veryard, Richard (September 16, 2005), Technology Hype Curve, retrieved 2009-08-12{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

I invite an independent editor to decide whether this is an appropriate reference. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a fair and well cited assessment to me. I guess you could add it to the article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)