andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-545 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I received the following (unsolicited) email today: Hello Andrew, I’m interested in whether you are accepting guest article submissions for your site Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science? I’m the owner of the recently created nonprofit site OnlineEngineeringDegree.org and am interested in writing / submitting an article for your consideration to be published on your site. Is that something you’d be willing to consider, and if so, what specs in terms of topics or length requirements would you be looking for? Thanks you for your time, and if you have any questions or are interested, I’d appreciate you letting me know. Sincerely, Samantha Rhodes Huh? P.S. My vote for most obnoxious spam remains this one , which does its best to dilute whatever remains of the reputation of Wolfram Research. Or maybe that particular bit of spam was written by a particularly awesome cellular automaton that Wolfram discovered? I guess in the world of big-time software
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I received the following (unsolicited) email today: Hello Andrew, I’m interested in whether you are accepting guest article submissions for your site Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science? [sent-1, score-1.021]
2 I’m the owner of the recently created nonprofit site OnlineEngineeringDegree. [sent-2, score-0.627]
3 org and am interested in writing / submitting an article for your consideration to be published on your site. [sent-3, score-0.524]
4 Is that something you’d be willing to consider, and if so, what specs in terms of topics or length requirements would you be looking for? [sent-4, score-0.708]
5 Thanks you for your time, and if you have any questions or are interested, I’d appreciate you letting me know. [sent-5, score-0.218]
6 My vote for most obnoxious spam remains this one , which does its best to dilute whatever remains of the reputation of Wolfram Research. [sent-9, score-1.273]
7 Or maybe that particular bit of spam was written by a particularly awesome cellular automaton that Wolfram discovered? [sent-10, score-0.815]
8 I guess in the world of big-time software it’s ok to lie if it might net you a bit of money. [sent-11, score-0.443]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('wolfram', 0.287), ('spam', 0.249), ('remains', 0.218), ('site', 0.201), ('cellular', 0.192), ('specs', 0.192), ('dilute', 0.181), ('rhodes', 0.181), ('hello', 0.173), ('interested', 0.171), ('nonprofit', 0.167), ('samantha', 0.162), ('guest', 0.155), ('owner', 0.155), ('consideration', 0.144), ('sincerely', 0.141), ('unsolicited', 0.141), ('obnoxious', 0.141), ('awesome', 0.137), ('requirements', 0.137), ('submitting', 0.134), ('submissions', 0.134), ('lie', 0.13), ('net', 0.127), ('letting', 0.126), ('accepting', 0.125), ('length', 0.119), ('reputation', 0.112), ('discovered', 0.11), ('thanks', 0.105), ('created', 0.104), ('huh', 0.096), ('willing', 0.095), ('bit', 0.094), ('software', 0.092), ('appreciate', 0.092), ('topics', 0.089), ('vote', 0.085), ('andrew', 0.083), ('received', 0.081), ('email', 0.079), ('causal', 0.077), ('money', 0.076), ('today', 0.076), ('terms', 0.076), ('article', 0.075), ('particularly', 0.073), ('written', 0.07), ('whatever', 0.069), ('modeling', 0.067)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
Introduction: I received the following (unsolicited) email today: Hello Andrew, I’m interested in whether you are accepting guest article submissions for your site Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science? I’m the owner of the recently created nonprofit site OnlineEngineeringDegree.org and am interested in writing / submitting an article for your consideration to be published on your site. Is that something you’d be willing to consider, and if so, what specs in terms of topics or length requirements would you be looking for? Thanks you for your time, and if you have any questions or are interested, I’d appreciate you letting me know. Sincerely, Samantha Rhodes Huh? P.S. My vote for most obnoxious spam remains this one , which does its best to dilute whatever remains of the reputation of Wolfram Research. Or maybe that particular bit of spam was written by a particularly awesome cellular automaton that Wolfram discovered? I guess in the world of big-time software
2 0.18786591 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 0.18745956 1421 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-19-Alexa, Maricel, and Marty: Three cellular automata who got on my nerves
Introduction: I received the following two emails within fifteen minutes of each other. First, from “Alexa Russell,” subject line “An idea for a blog post: The Role, Importance, and Power of Words”: Hi Andrew, I’m a researcher/writer for a resource covering the importance of English proficiency in today’s workplace. I came across your blog andrewgelman.com as I was conducting research and I’m interested in contributing an article to your blog because I found the topics you cover very engaging. I’m thinking about writing an article that looks at how the Internet has changed the way English is used today; not only has its syntax changed as a result of the Internet Revolution, but the amount of job opportunities has also shifted as a result of this shift. I’d be happy to work with you on the topic if you have any insights. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Best, Alexa Second, From “Maricel Anderson,” subject line “An idea for a blog post: Healthcare Management and Geri
4 0.14781469 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.
5 0.14568292 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
Introduction: A few days ago I reported on the spam email that I received from two business school professors (one at Columbia)! As noted on the blog, I sent an email directly to the study’s authors at the time of reading the email, but they have yet to respond. This surprises me a bit. Certainly if 6300 faculty each have time to respond to one email on this study, the two faculty have time to respond to 6300 email replies, no? I was actually polite enough to respond to both of their emails! If I do hear back, I’ll let youall know! P.S. Paul Basken interviewed me briefly for a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the now-notorious spam email study. Basken’s article is reasonable–he points out that (a) the study irritated a lot of people, but (b) is ultimately no big deal. One interesting thing about the article is that, although some people felt that the spam email study was ethical, nobody came forth with an argument that the study was actually worth doing. P.P.S. In
6 0.14548422 132 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-07-Note to “Cigarettes”
7 0.14297305 1824 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-25-Fascinating graphs from facebook data
8 0.14200063 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
9 0.13979705 735 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-28-New app for learning intro statistics
10 0.13949238 1488 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-08-Annals of spam
11 0.13815641 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
12 0.12447466 1207 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-10-A quick suggestion
13 0.1229552 879 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-New journal on causal inference
14 0.11784173 28 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-12-Alert: Incompetent colleague wastes time of hardworking Wolfram Research publicist
15 0.11395757 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
16 0.11231938 1573 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-11-Incredibly strange spam
17 0.10327557 839 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-To commenters who are trying to sell something
18 0.10324483 1871 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-Annals of spam
19 0.09703242 605 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-09-Does it feel like cheating when I do this? Variation in ethical standards and expectations
20 0.09363503 523 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-18-Spam is out of control
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.114), (1, -0.049), (2, -0.048), (3, 0.012), (4, -0.008), (5, 0.041), (6, -0.013), (7, -0.061), (8, 0.004), (9, -0.018), (10, 0.011), (11, -0.035), (12, 0.114), (13, 0.036), (14, -0.054), (15, 0.08), (16, 0.022), (17, -0.073), (18, -0.035), (19, 0.072), (20, 0.045), (21, -0.088), (22, 0.095), (23, -0.093), (24, 0.044), (25, 0.024), (26, 0.05), (27, 0.044), (28, -0.062), (29, -0.01), (30, -0.016), (31, -0.01), (32, -0.044), (33, 0.019), (34, -0.083), (35, 0.054), (36, 0.01), (37, -0.011), (38, 0.001), (39, 0.032), (40, -0.074), (41, 0.01), (42, -0.037), (43, -0.007), (44, -0.055), (45, -0.001), (46, 0.002), (47, 0.035), (48, 0.044), (49, -0.055)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96190923 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
Introduction: I received the following (unsolicited) email today: Hello Andrew, I’m interested in whether you are accepting guest article submissions for your site Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science? I’m the owner of the recently created nonprofit site OnlineEngineeringDegree.org and am interested in writing / submitting an article for your consideration to be published on your site. Is that something you’d be willing to consider, and if so, what specs in terms of topics or length requirements would you be looking for? Thanks you for your time, and if you have any questions or are interested, I’d appreciate you letting me know. Sincerely, Samantha Rhodes Huh? P.S. My vote for most obnoxious spam remains this one , which does its best to dilute whatever remains of the reputation of Wolfram Research. Or maybe that particular bit of spam was written by a particularly awesome cellular automaton that Wolfram discovered? I guess in the world of big-time software
2 0.78271455 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
3 0.74574649 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.”
4 0.7312029 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.
5 0.7200042 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 0.69725168 619 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-19-If a comment is flagged as spam, it will disappear forever
7 0.67910594 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
8 0.66392142 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
9 0.66305757 523 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-18-Spam is out of control
10 0.65732265 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
11 0.65187293 1421 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-19-Alexa, Maricel, and Marty: Three cellular automata who got on my nerves
12 0.64967197 2160 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-06-Spam names
13 0.63561034 1871 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-Annals of spam
14 0.60704553 817 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-23-New blog home
15 0.60688996 1698 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-30-The spam just gets weirder and weirder
16 0.60525113 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
17 0.59512395 530 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-22-MS-Bayes?
18 0.58472937 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
19 0.57987362 1589 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-25-Life as a blogger: the emails just get weirder and weirder
20 0.57284689 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
topicId topicWeight
[(24, 0.595), (53, 0.019), (79, 0.03), (83, 0.02), (95, 0.017), (97, 0.04), (98, 0.04), (99, 0.13)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.99293244 471 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-17-Attractive models (and data) wanted for statistical art show.
Introduction: I have agreed to do a local art exhibition in February. An excuse to think about form, colour and style for plotting almost individual observation likelihoods – while invoking the artists privilege of refusing to give interpretations of their own work. In order to make it possibly less dry I’ll try to use intuitive suggestive captions like in this example TheTyranyof13.pdf thereby side stepping the technical discussions like here RadfordNealBlog Suggested models and data sets (or even submissions) would be most appreciated. I likely be sticking to realism i.e. plots that represent ‘statistical reality’ faithfully. K?
2 0.99223685 1437 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-Paying survey respondents
Introduction: I agree with Casey Mulligan that participants in government surveys should be paid, and I think it should be part of the code of ethics for commercial pollsters to compensate their respondents also. As Mulligan points out, if a survey is worth doing, it should be worth compensating the participants for their time and effort. P.S. Just to clarify, I do not recommend that Census surveys be made voluntary, I just think that respondents (who can be required to participate) should be paid a small amount. P.P.S. More rant here .
Introduction: Jouni Kerman did a cool bit of research justifying the Beta (1/3, 1/3) prior as noninformative for binomial data, and the Gamma (1/3, 0) prior for Poisson data. You probably thought that nothing new could be said about noninformative priors in such basic problems, but you were wrong! Here’s the story : The conjugate binomial and Poisson models are commonly used for estimating proportions or rates. However, it is not well known that the conventional noninformative conjugate priors tend to shrink the posterior quantiles toward the boundary or toward the middle of the parameter space, making them thus appear excessively informative. The shrinkage is always largest when the number of observed events is small. This behavior persists for all sample sizes and exposures. The effect of the prior is therefore most conspicuous and potentially controversial when analyzing rare events. As alternative default conjugate priors, I [Jouni] introduce Beta(1/3, 1/3) and Gamma(1/3, 0), which I cal
same-blog 4 0.98315501 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
Introduction: I received the following (unsolicited) email today: Hello Andrew, I’m interested in whether you are accepting guest article submissions for your site Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science? I’m the owner of the recently created nonprofit site OnlineEngineeringDegree.org and am interested in writing / submitting an article for your consideration to be published on your site. Is that something you’d be willing to consider, and if so, what specs in terms of topics or length requirements would you be looking for? Thanks you for your time, and if you have any questions or are interested, I’d appreciate you letting me know. Sincerely, Samantha Rhodes Huh? P.S. My vote for most obnoxious spam remains this one , which does its best to dilute whatever remains of the reputation of Wolfram Research. Or maybe that particular bit of spam was written by a particularly awesome cellular automaton that Wolfram discovered? I guess in the world of big-time software
5 0.98218572 59 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-30-Extended Binary Format Support for Mac OS X
Introduction: Rodney Sparapani writes: My Windows buddies have been bugging me about BRUGS and how great it is. Now, running BRUGS on OS X may be possible. Check out this new amazing software by Amit Singh. Personally, I’d go with R2jags , but I thought I’d pass this on in case others are interested.
6 0.98196399 240 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-29-ARM solutions
7 0.97011667 613 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-15-Gay-married state senator shot down gay marriage
8 0.97011667 712 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-14-The joys of working in the public domain
9 0.97011667 723 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-21-Literary blurb translation guide
10 0.97011667 1242 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-03-Best lottery story ever
11 0.97011667 1252 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-08-Jagdish Bhagwati’s definition of feminist sincerity
12 0.96760821 643 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-02-So-called Bayesian hypothesis testing is just as bad as regular hypothesis testing
13 0.95157266 38 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-18-Breastfeeding, infant hyperbilirubinemia, statistical graphics, and modern medicine
14 0.94074154 373 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-27-It’s better than being forwarded the latest works of you-know-who
15 0.93752289 241 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-29-Ethics and statistics in development research
16 0.93439281 1978 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-12-Fixing the race, ethnicity, and national origin questions on the U.S. Census
17 0.93358624 938 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-03-Comparing prediction errors
18 0.9327957 1479 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-01-Mothers and Moms
19 0.93253785 2229 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-28-God-leaf-tree
20 0.930825 1092 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-29-More by Berger and me on weakly informative priors