andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-132 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: To the person who posted an apparently non-spam comment with a URL link to a “cheap cigarettes” website: In case you’re wondering, no, your comment didn’t get caught by the spam filter–I’m not sure why not, given that URL. I put it in the spam file manually. If you’d like to participate in blog discussion in the future, please refrain from including spam links. Thank you. Also, it’s “John Tukey,” not “John Turkey.”
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 To the person who posted an apparently non-spam comment with a URL link to a “cheap cigarettes” website: In case you’re wondering, no, your comment didn’t get caught by the spam filter–I’m not sure why not, given that URL. [sent-1, score-1.867]
2 If you’d like to participate in blog discussion in the future, please refrain from including spam links. [sent-3, score-1.158]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('spam', 0.583), ('cigarettes', 0.27), ('url', 0.261), ('john', 0.212), ('cheap', 0.212), ('tukey', 0.204), ('comment', 0.202), ('filter', 0.198), ('thank', 0.188), ('participate', 0.185), ('file', 0.18), ('caught', 0.154), ('apparently', 0.145), ('website', 0.144), ('wondering', 0.141), ('posted', 0.131), ('future', 0.124), ('please', 0.123), ('person', 0.105), ('link', 0.096), ('including', 0.095), ('didn', 0.08), ('put', 0.075), ('discussion', 0.073), ('given', 0.072), ('sure', 0.071), ('blog', 0.066), ('case', 0.064), ('re', 0.054), ('get', 0.042), ('also', 0.039), ('like', 0.033)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 132 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-07-Note to “Cigarettes”
Introduction: To the person who posted an apparently non-spam comment with a URL link to a “cheap cigarettes” website: In case you’re wondering, no, your comment didn’t get caught by the spam filter–I’m not sure why not, given that URL. I put it in the spam file manually. If you’d like to participate in blog discussion in the future, please refrain from including spam links. Thank you. Also, it’s “John Tukey,” not “John Turkey.”
2 0.49436945 425 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-21-If your comment didn’t get through . . .
Introduction: It probably got caught in the spam filter. We get tons and tons of spam (including the annoying spam that I have to remove by hand). If your comment was accompanied by an ad or a spam link, then maybe I just deleted it.
3 0.36404672 619 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-19-If a comment is flagged as spam, it will disappear forever
Introduction: A commenter wrote (by email): I’ve noticed that you’ve quit approving my comments on your blog. I hope I didn’t anger you in some way or write something you felt was inappropriate. My reply: I have not been unapproving any comments. If you have comments that have not appeared, they have probably been going into the spam filter. I get literally thousands of spam comments a day and so anything that hits the spam filter is gone forever. I think there is a way to register as a commenter; that could help.
4 0.35582221 1488 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-08-Annals of spam
Introduction: I have to go through the inbox to approve new comments. When I set to auto-approve, I get overwhelmed with spam. As is, I still get spam but it’s manageable. Usually the spam is uninteresting but this one caught my eye: At first this seemed reasonable enough: law firm is desperate for business, spams blogs to raise its Google ranking. But what’s with the writing in the actual comment? It’s incoherent but it doesn’t look computer-generated. My guess is that the law firm in Massachusetts hired a company that promised to raise their Google rankings, and that this company hired some non-English-speaking foreigners to search through the web and write some spam comments. If anyone actually reads the comments, they might get the impression that this law firm is staffed by illiterates . . . but, as we all know, nobody reads blog comments! P.S. I followed the link (sorry!) and came across this: I guess if they’re going to use a tragedy as an excuse to troll for Faceb
5 0.35119882 839 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-To commenters who are trying to sell something
Introduction: We screen our comments. If you link to an url of the form, http://we’re-selling-you-crap.org, then you go straight into the spam folder. If you want to contribute to the discussion here, fine. Comment without the spam links. If you want to advertise, go elsewhere. It’s customary to pay for ads. We have no plans to advertise your services for free.
6 0.22734751 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
7 0.22546299 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
8 0.21891959 523 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-18-Spam is out of control
9 0.21094407 817 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-23-New blog home
10 0.18321113 2160 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-06-Spam names
11 0.17450763 2064 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-16-Test run for G+ hangout for my Bayesian Data Analysis class
12 0.1580434 635 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-Bayesian spam!
13 0.14548422 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
14 0.13752846 1709 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-06-The fractal nature of scientific revolutions
15 0.13131456 2282 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-05-Bizarre academic spam
16 0.12540163 9 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-28-But it all goes to pay for gas, car insurance, and tolls on the turnpike
17 0.12132544 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
18 0.11015426 1175 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-19-Factual – a new place to find data
19 0.10887487 2276 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-On deck this week
20 0.1060231 220 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Why I blog?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.084), (1, -0.055), (2, -0.056), (3, 0.022), (4, 0.032), (5, 0.022), (6, 0.05), (7, -0.078), (8, 0.023), (9, -0.075), (10, 0.022), (11, -0.004), (12, 0.22), (13, 0.039), (14, -0.052), (15, 0.125), (16, -0.03), (17, -0.086), (18, -0.083), (19, 0.07), (20, 0.122), (21, -0.087), (22, -0.004), (23, -0.199), (24, 0.015), (25, -0.022), (26, 0.093), (27, 0.103), (28, -0.07), (29, -0.04), (30, 0.011), (31, 0.092), (32, 0.025), (33, -0.014), (34, -0.079), (35, 0.179), (36, -0.019), (37, 0.055), (38, 0.008), (39, 0.038), (40, -0.152), (41, 0.129), (42, -0.057), (43, 0.044), (44, -0.005), (45, -0.027), (46, 0.054), (47, 0.055), (48, 0.011), (49, 0.022)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.98129863 425 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-21-If your comment didn’t get through . . .
Introduction: It probably got caught in the spam filter. We get tons and tons of spam (including the annoying spam that I have to remove by hand). If your comment was accompanied by an ad or a spam link, then maybe I just deleted it.
same-blog 2 0.97860569 132 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-07-Note to “Cigarettes”
Introduction: To the person who posted an apparently non-spam comment with a URL link to a “cheap cigarettes” website: In case you’re wondering, no, your comment didn’t get caught by the spam filter–I’m not sure why not, given that URL. I put it in the spam file manually. If you’d like to participate in blog discussion in the future, please refrain from including spam links. Thank you. Also, it’s “John Tukey,” not “John Turkey.”
3 0.9406898 839 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-To commenters who are trying to sell something
Introduction: We screen our comments. If you link to an url of the form, http://we’re-selling-you-crap.org, then you go straight into the spam folder. If you want to contribute to the discussion here, fine. Comment without the spam links. If you want to advertise, go elsewhere. It’s customary to pay for ads. We have no plans to advertise your services for free.
4 0.91812527 1488 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-08-Annals of spam
Introduction: I have to go through the inbox to approve new comments. When I set to auto-approve, I get overwhelmed with spam. As is, I still get spam but it’s manageable. Usually the spam is uninteresting but this one caught my eye: At first this seemed reasonable enough: law firm is desperate for business, spams blogs to raise its Google ranking. But what’s with the writing in the actual comment? It’s incoherent but it doesn’t look computer-generated. My guess is that the law firm in Massachusetts hired a company that promised to raise their Google rankings, and that this company hired some non-English-speaking foreigners to search through the web and write some spam comments. If anyone actually reads the comments, they might get the impression that this law firm is staffed by illiterates . . . but, as we all know, nobody reads blog comments! P.S. I followed the link (sorry!) and came across this: I guess if they’re going to use a tragedy as an excuse to troll for Faceb
5 0.91500711 523 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-18-Spam is out of control
Introduction: I just took a look at the spam folder . . . 600 messages in the past hour ! Seems pretty ridiculous to me.
6 0.89200765 619 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-19-If a comment is flagged as spam, it will disappear forever
7 0.84420329 817 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-23-New blog home
8 0.720339 1709 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-06-The fractal nature of scientific revolutions
9 0.66890383 876 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-28-Vaguely related to the coke-dumping story
10 0.66727966 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
11 0.64802814 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
12 0.64466786 2160 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-06-Spam names
13 0.62480432 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
14 0.60793751 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
15 0.58906472 9 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-28-But it all goes to pay for gas, car insurance, and tolls on the turnpike
16 0.58816248 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
17 0.58753389 220 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Why I blog?
18 0.58129418 1791 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-07-Scatterplot charades!
19 0.55782223 790 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Blog in motion
20 0.55335933 635 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-Bayesian spam!
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.035), (24, 0.114), (30, 0.038), (54, 0.048), (72, 0.075), (98, 0.25), (99, 0.274)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.94158781 26 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on religious affiliations of Supreme Court justices
Introduction: When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated for the Supreme Court, and there was some discussion of having 6 Roman Catholics on the court at the same time, I posted the following historical graph: It’s time for an update: It’s still gonna take awhile for the Catholics to catch up. . . . And this one might be relevant too: It looks as if Jews and men have been overrepresented, also Episcopalians (which, as I noted earlier, are not necessarily considered Protestant in terms of religious doctrine but which I counted as such for the ethnic categorization). Religion is an interesting political variable because it’s nominally about religious belief but typically seems to be more about ethnicity.
same-blog 2 0.92893374 132 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-07-Note to “Cigarettes”
Introduction: To the person who posted an apparently non-spam comment with a URL link to a “cheap cigarettes” website: In case you’re wondering, no, your comment didn’t get caught by the spam filter–I’m not sure why not, given that URL. I put it in the spam file manually. If you’d like to participate in blog discussion in the future, please refrain from including spam links. Thank you. Also, it’s “John Tukey,” not “John Turkey.”
3 0.92788374 96 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-18-Course proposal: Bayesian and advanced likelihood statistical methods for zombies.
Introduction: The course outline ZombieCourseOutline.rtf Hints/draft R code for implementing this for a regression example from D. Pena x=c(1:10,17,17,17) y=c(1:10,25,25,25) ZombieAssign1.txt The assignment being to provide a legend that explains all the lines and symbols in this plot ZombieAssign1.pdf With a bonus assignment being to provide better R code and or techniques. And a possible graduate student assignment to investigate what percentage of examples in graduate stats texts (e.g. Cox & Hinkley) could be displayed this way (reducing the number of parameters to least number possible). K? p.s. might have been a better post for Friday the 13th p.s.2 background material from my thesis (passed in 2007) ThesisReprint.pdf
4 0.92754358 1399 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-28-Life imitates blog
Introduction: I just noticed this from a couple years ago!
5 0.91318721 208 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-15-When Does a Name Become Androgynous?
Introduction: Good stuff , as always, from Laura Wattenberg.
6 0.90680456 420 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-18-Prison terms for financial fraud?
7 0.90572309 2333 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-13-Personally, I’d rather go with Teragram
8 0.9037506 196 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-10-The U.S. as welfare state
9 0.90097642 742 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-02-Grouponomics, counterfactuals, and opportunity cost
10 0.89290261 425 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-21-If your comment didn’t get through . . .
11 0.89257777 1249 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-06-Thinking seriously about social science research
12 0.88550639 1853 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-12-OpenData Latinoamerica
13 0.88233995 1701 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-The name that fell off a cliff
14 0.88064343 1 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-22-Political Belief Networks: Socio-cognitive Heterogeneity in American Public Opinion
15 0.87448871 1239 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-01-A randomized trial of the set-point diet
16 0.86391634 1867 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-22-To Throw Away Data: Plagiarism as a Statistical Crime
17 0.85457116 376 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-My talk at American University
18 0.84524643 955 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-12-Why it doesn’t make sense to chew people out for not reading the help page
19 0.84016854 1556 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-01-Recently in the sister blogs: special pre-election edition!
20 0.83363658 1806 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-16-My talk in Chicago this Thurs 6:30pm