CCL: CCL #DFT16poll results are out

 I also like the polls because they give me an idea of what most scientists
 use and like, which may be a good first approach when it comes to
 reliability (i.e as opposed to trying to re-theorize everything, or fail
 under the biased opinion of a single author), albeit at the expense of
 accuracy in some cases; however, that is when I use my intuition  and go to
 the literature, compare the performance of specific, different
 functionals,  based on the problem I am trying to solve. For some of the
 simple problems I currently tackle, I run a parent system with two or three
 different functionals to evaluate the reliability of the results.
 Personally, I would give more credit to old functionals that "perform
 than to new ones that perform just as well as the older ones, and that
 would be one thing I would change about the poll. I would like to hear some
 arguments for/against this.
 Also, from  the comments of some members, I would also add to the poll some
 of the newer functionals that may have been excluded so far, either from an
 availability perspective software-wise or from a personal taste, but that
 nevertheless should not effect the final purpose of a DFT poll.
 Daniel Morales Salazar
 Bachelor of Science in Chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology
 PhD student, Department of Chemistry - Ångström Laboratory
 Uppsala University
 Box 523
 SE-751 20 Uppsala
 On Oct 19, 2016 17:44, "Jim Kress jimkress35|a|" <
 owner-chemistry()> wrote:
 > Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35]=[]
 > Lehtola
 > You complained about the method.  Adding more functionals is the response
 > to
 > which Marcel responded.  You have yet to provide your "better
 > Jim Kress
 > -----Original Message-----
 > > From:{}
 > [{}] On Behalf Of Susi
 > Lehtola susi.lehtola(-)
 > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:41 PM
 > To: Kress, Jim  <jimkress35{}>
 > Subject: CCL: CCL #DFT16poll results are out
 > Sent to CCL by: Susi Lehtola []
 > On 10/18/2016 08:49 AM, Jim Kress jimkress35{:} wrote:
 > > If you have a better way of bringing order out of this chaos, then
 > > provide it.  Otherwise your denigrating comments are unhelpful and
 > without
 > merit.
 > I guess you didn't read my messages. I have given two suggestions:
 > include newer functionals and/or don't prescreen the poll by only including
 > old functionals.
 > --
 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 > Mr. Susi Lehtola, PhD             Chemist Postdoctoral Fellow
 > susi.lehtola-$   Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
 >  USA
 > -----------------------------------------------------------------------ht
 > tp://
 > -= This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =->