andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-199 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I just deleted another comment that seemed reasonable but was attached to an advertisement. Here’s a note to all of you advertisers out there: If you want to leave a comment on this site, please do so without the link to your website on search engine optimization or whatever. Or else it will get deleted. Which means you were wasting your time in writing the comment. I want your comments and I don’t want you to waste your time. So please just stop already with the links, and we’ll both be happier. P.S. Don’t worry, you’re still not as bad as the journal Nature (see the P.S. here ).
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I just deleted another comment that seemed reasonable but was attached to an advertisement. [sent-1, score-1.049]
2 Here’s a note to all of you advertisers out there: If you want to leave a comment on this site, please do so without the link to your website on search engine optimization or whatever. [sent-2, score-2.323]
3 Which means you were wasting your time in writing the comment. [sent-4, score-0.514]
4 I want your comments and I don’t want you to waste your time. [sent-5, score-0.749]
5 So please just stop already with the links, and we’ll both be happier. [sent-6, score-0.559]
6 Don’t worry, you’re still not as bad as the journal Nature (see the P. [sent-9, score-0.291]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('advertisers', 0.311), ('please', 0.282), ('deleted', 0.277), ('comment', 0.233), ('wasting', 0.23), ('engine', 0.23), ('optimization', 0.216), ('waste', 0.214), ('want', 0.213), ('attached', 0.202), ('site', 0.18), ('leave', 0.176), ('stop', 0.168), ('worry', 0.168), ('website', 0.165), ('links', 0.158), ('search', 0.154), ('nature', 0.149), ('note', 0.143), ('seemed', 0.135), ('else', 0.125), ('means', 0.124), ('reasonable', 0.12), ('journal', 0.11), ('link', 0.11), ('comments', 0.109), ('already', 0.109), ('writing', 0.104), ('bad', 0.102), ('without', 0.09), ('another', 0.082), ('still', 0.079), ('ll', 0.078), ('re', 0.062), ('time', 0.056), ('get', 0.049), ('see', 0.045)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
Introduction: I just deleted another comment that seemed reasonable but was attached to an advertisement. Here’s a note to all of you advertisers out there: If you want to leave a comment on this site, please do so without the link to your website on search engine optimization or whatever. Or else it will get deleted. Which means you were wasting your time in writing the comment. I want your comments and I don’t want you to waste your time. So please just stop already with the links, and we’ll both be happier. P.S. Don’t worry, you’re still not as bad as the journal Nature (see the P.S. here ).
2 0.16002126 1871 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-Annals of spam
Introduction: I received the following email, subject line “Want to Buy Text Link from andrewgelman.com”: Dear, I am Mary Taylor. I have started a link building campaign for my growing websites. For this, I need your cooperation. The campaign is quite diverse and large scale and if you take some time to understand it – it will benefit us. First I want to clarify that I do not want “blogroll” ”footer” or any other type of “site wide links”. Secondly I want links from inner pages of site – with good page rank of course. Third links should be within text so that Google may not mark them as spam – not for you and not for me. Hence this link building will cause almost no harm to your site or me. Because content links are fine with Google. Now I should come to the requirements. I will accept links from Page Rank 3 to as high as you have got. Also kindly note that I can buy 1 to 50 links from one site – so you should understand the scale of the project. If you have multiple sites with co
Introduction: At the Statistics Forum, we highlight a debate about how statistics should be taught in high schools. Check it out and then please leave your comments there.
4 0.15018746 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
Introduction: Seth Rogers writes: I [Rogers] am a member of an online community of statisticians where I burn a great deal of time (and a recovering cog sci researcher). Our community website is a peer-reviewed Q and A spanning stats topics ranging from applications to mathematical theory. Our online community consists of mostly university faculty, grad students and technical consultants. The answer quality is very strong and the web design is intuitive. I think you and your readers are like-minded and would be really interested in some of the topics on the site, CrossValidated (you may know the sister site: stackoverflow.com ). The philosophy is purely to further knowledge for the sake of knowledge and take pride in learning. I took a quick look and the site seemed like it could be useful to people. The only thing I didn’t understand is, why doesn’t it have a search function? (Or maybe it was there somewhere and I couldn’t find it.) P.S. to all the commenters who wrote replies such
5 0.12403185 1359 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-02-Another retraction
Introduction: Xian points me to this pitiful story. I hate that these people never just say they’re sorry, for wasting everyone’s time if for nothing else.
6 0.12213158 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
7 0.12132544 132 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-07-Note to “Cigarettes”
8 0.12129816 1658 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-07-Free advice from an academic writing coach!
9 0.11324339 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
10 0.10016909 2075 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-23-PubMed Commons: A system for commenting on articles in PubMed
11 0.0981929 425 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-21-If your comment didn’t get through . . .
12 0.097288184 1202 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-08-Between and within-Krugman correlation
13 0.094378725 223 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-21-Statoverflow
14 0.093495272 1976 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-10-The birthday problem
15 0.087520018 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
16 0.086847655 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
17 0.086511441 2054 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-07-Bing is preferred to Google by people who aren’t like me
18 0.084845088 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
19 0.084177546 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
20 0.083178669 627 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-24-How few respondents are reasonable to use when calculating the average by county?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.116), (1, -0.063), (2, -0.075), (3, 0.023), (4, 0.032), (5, 0.004), (6, 0.042), (7, -0.086), (8, 0.008), (9, -0.054), (10, 0.026), (11, -0.019), (12, 0.095), (13, 0.029), (14, -0.034), (15, 0.059), (16, 0.001), (17, -0.039), (18, -0.053), (19, 0.03), (20, 0.074), (21, -0.017), (22, 0.042), (23, -0.114), (24, 0.015), (25, 0.025), (26, 0.055), (27, 0.019), (28, -0.02), (29, 0.019), (30, -0.037), (31, -0.027), (32, 0.037), (33, -0.025), (34, -0.062), (35, 0.039), (36, -0.029), (37, -0.004), (38, 0.026), (39, 0.008), (40, 0.045), (41, 0.005), (42, 0.006), (43, 0.019), (44, -0.033), (45, 0.014), (46, -0.033), (47, 0.05), (48, -0.016), (49, 0.018)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97735369 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
Introduction: I just deleted another comment that seemed reasonable but was attached to an advertisement. Here’s a note to all of you advertisers out there: If you want to leave a comment on this site, please do so without the link to your website on search engine optimization or whatever. Or else it will get deleted. Which means you were wasting your time in writing the comment. I want your comments and I don’t want you to waste your time. So please just stop already with the links, and we’ll both be happier. P.S. Don’t worry, you’re still not as bad as the journal Nature (see the P.S. here ).
2 0.86230046 1871 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-Annals of spam
Introduction: I received the following email, subject line “Want to Buy Text Link from andrewgelman.com”: Dear, I am Mary Taylor. I have started a link building campaign for my growing websites. For this, I need your cooperation. The campaign is quite diverse and large scale and if you take some time to understand it – it will benefit us. First I want to clarify that I do not want “blogroll” ”footer” or any other type of “site wide links”. Secondly I want links from inner pages of site – with good page rank of course. Third links should be within text so that Google may not mark them as spam – not for you and not for me. Hence this link building will cause almost no harm to your site or me. Because content links are fine with Google. Now I should come to the requirements. I will accept links from Page Rank 3 to as high as you have got. Also kindly note that I can buy 1 to 50 links from one site – so you should understand the scale of the project. If you have multiple sites with co
3 0.75853044 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 0.75496346 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
Introduction: I received the following message from “Patricia Lopez” of “Premium Link Ads”: Hello, I am interested in placing a text link on your page: http://andrewgelman.com/2011/07/super_sam_fuld/. The link would point to a page on a website that is relevant to your page and may be useful to your site visitors. We would be happy to compensate you for your time if it is something we are able to work out. The best way to reach me is through a direct response to this email. This will help me get back to you about the right link request. Please let me know if you are interested, and if not thanks for your time. Thanks. Usually I just ignore these, but after our recent discussion I decided to reply. I wrote: How much do you pay? But no answer. I wonder what’s going on? I mean, why bother sending the email in the first place if you’re not going to follow up?
5 0.74592537 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.”
6 0.73892838 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
7 0.73697782 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
8 0.73661339 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
9 0.72909075 1488 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-08-Annals of spam
10 0.70300519 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
11 0.69292897 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
12 0.67547697 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
13 0.65516388 919 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-21-Least surprising headline of the year
14 0.64186132 223 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-21-Statoverflow
15 0.63406754 587 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-5 seconds of every #1 pop single
16 0.62551081 425 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-21-If your comment didn’t get through . . .
18 0.6245321 1257 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Statisticians’ abbreviations are even less interesting than these!
19 0.62421465 2075 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-23-PubMed Commons: A system for commenting on articles in PubMed
20 0.6232214 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
topicId topicWeight
[(9, 0.027), (16, 0.105), (21, 0.046), (24, 0.056), (59, 0.24), (86, 0.022), (99, 0.361)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95603359 853 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-14-Preferential admissions for children of elite colleges
Introduction: Jenny Anderson reports on a discussion of the practice of colleges preferential admission of children of alumni: [Richard] Kahlenberg citing research from his book “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions” made the case that getting into good schools matters — 12 institutions making up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population produced 42 percent of government leaders and 54 percent of corporate leaders. And being a legacy helps improve an applicant’s chances of getting in, with one study finding that being a primary legacy — the son or daughter of an undergraduate alumnus or alumna — increases one’s chance of admission by 45.1 percent. I’d call that 45 percent but I get the basic idea. But then Jeffrey Brenzel of the Yale admissions office replied: “We turn away 80 percent of our legacies, and we feel it every day,” Mr. Brenzel said, adding that he rejected more offspring of the school’s Sterling donors than he accepted this year (
Introduction: Someone points me to this report from Tilburg University on disgraced psychology researcher Diederik Stapel. The reports includes bits like this: When the fraud was first discovered, limiting the harm it caused for the victims was a matter of urgency. This was particularly the case for Mr Stapel’s former PhD students and postdoctoral researchers . . . However, the Committees were of the opinion that the main bulk of the work had not yet even started. . . . Journal publications can often leave traces that reach far into and even beyond scientific disciplines. The self-cleansing character of science calls for fraudulent publications to be withdrawn and no longer to proliferate within the literature. In addition, based on their initial impressions, the Committees believed that there were other serious issues within Mr Stapel’s publications . . . This brought into the spotlight a research culture in which this sloppy science, alongside out-and-out fraud, was able to remain undetected
3 0.95223284 214 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-17-Probability-processing hardware
Introduction: Lyric Semiconductor posted: For over 60 years, computers have been based on digital computing principles. Data is represented as bits (0s and 1s). Boolean logic gates perform operations on these bits. A processor steps through many of these operations serially in order to perform a function. However, today’s most interesting problems are not at all suited to this approach. Here at Lyric Semiconductor, we are redesigning information processing circuits from the ground up to natively process probabilities: from the gate circuits to the processor architecture to the programming language. As a result, many applications that today require a thousand conventional processors will soon run in just one Lyric processor, providing 1,000x efficiencies in cost, power, and size. Om Malik has some more information, also relating to the team and the business. The fundamental idea is that computing architectures work deterministically, even though the world is fundamentally stochastic.
4 0.93738031 34 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-14-Non-academic writings on literature
Introduction: Jenny writes : The Possessed made me [Jenny] think about an interesting workshop-style class I’d like to teach, which would be an undergraduate seminar for students who wanted to find out non-academic ways of writing seriously about literature. The syllabus would include some essays from this book, Geoff Dyer’s Out of Sheer Rage, Jonathan Coe’s Like a Fiery Elephant – and what else? I agree with the commenters that this would be a great class, but . . . I’m confused on the premise. Isn’t there just a huge, huge amount of excellent serious non-academic writing about literature? George Orwell, Mark Twain, Bernard Shaw, T. S. Eliot (if you like that sort of thing), Anthony Burgess , Mary McCarthy (I think you’d call her nonacademic even though she taught the occasional college course), G. K. Chesterton , etc etc etc? Teaching a course about academic ways of writing seriously about literature would seem much tougher to me.
5 0.93418616 1000 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Forecasting 2012: How much does ideology matter?
Introduction: Brendan Nyhan and Jacob Montgomery talk sense here . I am perhaps too influenced by Steven Rosenstone’s 1983 book, Forecasting Presidential Elections, which is the first thing I read on the topic. In any case, I agree with Nyhan and Montgomery that the difference in vote, comparing a centrist candidate to an extreme candidate, is probably on the order of 1-2%, not the 4% that has been posited by some. Among other things, ideological differences between candidates of the same party might seem big in the primaries, but then when the general election comes along, party ID becomes more important. I also disagree with the model in which presidential elections are like votes for high school prom king .
6 0.93313706 229 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Bizarre twisty argument about medical diagnostic tests
same-blog 7 0.93137389 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
8 0.93037689 763 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-Inventor of Connect Four dies at 91
9 0.91677701 580 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-19-Weather visualization with WeatherSpark
10 0.91474807 1716 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-09-iPython Notebook
11 0.91238338 1408 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-07-Not much difference between communicating to self and communicating to others
12 0.91212684 1380 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-15-Coaching, teaching, and writing
13 0.90694511 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
15 0.90109599 1764 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-15-How do I make my graphs?
16 0.89930952 965 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-19-Web-friendly visualizations in R
17 0.89374757 517 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-14-Bayes in China update
18 0.8886373 1190 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-29-Why “Why”?
19 0.88475811 1377 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-13-A question about AIC
20 0.88224769 766 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-14-Last Wegman post (for now)