andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-1080 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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?
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 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. [sent-1, score-1.152]
2 The link would point to a page on a website that is relevant to your page and may be useful to your site visitors. [sent-3, score-1.571]
3 We would be happy to compensate you for your time if it is something we are able to work out. [sent-4, score-0.539]
4 The best way to reach me is through a direct response to this email. [sent-5, score-0.421]
5 This will help me get back to you about the right link request. [sent-6, score-0.561]
6 Please let me know if you are interested, and if not thanks for your time. [sent-7, score-0.222]
7 Usually I just ignore these, but after our recent discussion I decided to reply. [sent-9, score-0.415]
8 I mean, why bother sending the email in the first place if you’re not going to follow up? [sent-13, score-0.824]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('link', 0.342), ('page', 0.299), ('patricia', 0.241), ('hello', 0.241), ('compensate', 0.226), ('premium', 0.226), ('placing', 0.207), ('ads', 0.194), ('sending', 0.165), ('bother', 0.159), ('interested', 0.158), ('ignore', 0.149), ('thanks', 0.147), ('reach', 0.146), ('site', 0.14), ('text', 0.138), ('going', 0.136), ('decided', 0.132), ('website', 0.129), ('message', 0.124), ('http', 0.12), ('pay', 0.118), ('direct', 0.113), ('received', 0.113), ('email', 0.11), ('please', 0.109), ('happy', 0.108), ('follow', 0.105), ('usually', 0.101), ('wonder', 0.1), ('relevant', 0.098), ('place', 0.097), ('able', 0.094), ('response', 0.09), ('help', 0.087), ('useful', 0.085), ('mean', 0.076), ('let', 0.075), ('best', 0.072), ('may', 0.071), ('back', 0.071), ('following', 0.07), ('recent', 0.069), ('wrote', 0.067), ('discussion', 0.065), ('right', 0.061), ('would', 0.059), ('first', 0.052), ('something', 0.052), ('point', 0.049)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 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?
2 0.35120818 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
Introduction: A few months ago I reported on someone who wanted to insert text links into the blog. I asked her how much they would pay and got no answer. Yesterday, though, I received this reply: Hello Andrew, I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’d like to make a proposal for your site. Please refer below. We would like to place a simple text link ad on page http://andrewgelman.com/2011/07/super_sam_fuld/ to link to *** with the key phrase ***. We will incorporate the key phrase into a sentence so it would read well. Rest assured it won’t sound obnoxious or advertorial. We will then process the final text link code as soon as you agree to our proposal. We can offer you $200 for this with the assumption that you will keep the link “live” on that page for 12 months or longer if you prefer. Please get back to us with a quick reply on your thoughts on this and include your Paypal ID for payment process. Hoping for a positive response from you. I wrote back: Hi,
3 0.1785402 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
Introduction: Try this link . . . . OK, it worked (as well as might be expected given that we don’t have any professional audiovisual people involved). Tomorrow 8h30, I’ll post a new link with the new G+ hangout. We’ll be going through the first two sets of slides (class1a.pdf and class1b.pdf) following the link for the slides here .
4 0.17056185 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: See page 179 here for Gowa’s review from 1986. And here’s my version (from 2008).
6 0.16002262 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
7 0.14200063 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
8 0.12317243 587 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-5 seconds of every #1 pop single
9 0.12242469 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
10 0.12213158 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
11 0.12111448 223 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-21-Statoverflow
12 0.11905325 485 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-25-Unlogging
13 0.11126921 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
14 0.10997701 1318 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-13-Stolen jokes
15 0.10948712 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
16 0.10928648 1436 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-A book on presenting numbers from spreadsheets
17 0.10807139 909 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-7 steps to successful infographics
18 0.10739303 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
19 0.10453411 1433 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-28-LOL without the CATS
20 0.10279727 225 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-23-Getting into hot water over hot graphics
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.145), (1, -0.062), (2, -0.053), (3, 0.039), (4, 0.064), (5, 0.024), (6, 0.045), (7, -0.078), (8, 0.004), (9, -0.068), (10, 0.013), (11, -0.095), (12, 0.104), (13, 0.019), (14, -0.02), (15, 0.124), (16, 0.021), (17, -0.019), (18, -0.07), (19, 0.026), (20, 0.042), (21, -0.011), (22, 0.143), (23, -0.102), (24, 0.009), (25, 0.016), (26, 0.103), (27, 0.022), (28, -0.003), (29, 0.016), (30, -0.1), (31, 0.036), (32, 0.027), (33, -0.019), (34, -0.03), (35, -0.041), (36, -0.031), (37, -0.122), (38, 0.052), (39, 0.106), (40, 0.161), (41, 0.015), (42, 0.071), (43, -0.019), (44, 0.019), (45, 0.035), (46, -0.045), (47, -0.004), (48, -0.016), (49, 0.045)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98631716 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?
2 0.89908493 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 0.89765227 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
Introduction: A few months ago I reported on someone who wanted to insert text links into the blog. I asked her how much they would pay and got no answer. Yesterday, though, I received this reply: Hello Andrew, I am sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’d like to make a proposal for your site. Please refer below. We would like to place a simple text link ad on page http://andrewgelman.com/2011/07/super_sam_fuld/ to link to *** with the key phrase ***. We will incorporate the key phrase into a sentence so it would read well. Rest assured it won’t sound obnoxious or advertorial. We will then process the final text link code as soon as you agree to our proposal. We can offer you $200 for this with the assumption that you will keep the link “live” on that page for 12 months or longer if you prefer. Please get back to us with a quick reply on your thoughts on this and include your Paypal ID for payment process. Hoping for a positive response from you. I wrote back: Hi,
Introduction: Neil Malhotra writes: I just wanted to alert to this completely misinformed Politico article by Roger Simon, equating sampling theory with “magic.” Normally, I wouldn’t send you this, but I sent him a helpful email and he was a complete jerk about it. Wow—this is really bad. It’s so bad I refuse to link to it. I don’t know who this dude is, but it’s pitiful. Andy Rooney could do better. And I don’t mean Andy Rooney in his prime, I mean Andy Rooney right now. The piece appears to be an attempt at jocularity, but it’s about 10 million times worse than whatever the worst thing is that Dave Barry has ever written. My question to Neil Malhotra is . . . what made you click on this in the first place? P.S. John Sides piles on with some Gallup quotes.
5 0.75335228 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 ).
6 0.7377274 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
7 0.72861975 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
8 0.71831924 587 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-5 seconds of every #1 pop single
9 0.70833617 1257 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Statisticians’ abbreviations are even less interesting than these!
10 0.68048048 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
11 0.66981584 1433 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-28-LOL without the CATS
12 0.65938169 357 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-20-Sas and R
13 0.65794259 734 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-28-Funniest comment ever
14 0.63928592 1380 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-15-Coaching, teaching, and writing
15 0.63486612 1005 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-11-Robert H. Frank and P. J. O’Rourke present . . .
16 0.63194621 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
17 0.63140398 332 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Proposed new section of the American Statistical Association on Imaging Sciences
18 0.62585157 1444 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-05-Those darn conservative egalitarians
19 0.62052691 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
20 0.61362237 1098 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-04-Bayesian Page Rank?
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.017), (16, 0.099), (21, 0.065), (24, 0.346), (30, 0.033), (52, 0.027), (76, 0.029), (81, 0.054), (99, 0.21)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.9615128 1092 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-29-More by Berger and me on weakly informative priors
Introduction: A couple days ago we discussed some remarks by Tony O’Hagan and Jim Berger on weakly informative priors. Jim followed up on Deborah Mayo’s blog with this: Objective Bayesian priors are often improper (i.e., have infinite total mass), but this is not a problem when they are developed correctly. But not every improper prior is satisfactory. For instance, the constant prior is known to be unsatisfactory in many situations. The ‘solution’ pseudo-Bayesians often use is to choose a constant prior over a large but bounded set (a ‘weakly informative’ prior), saying it is now proper and so all is well. This is not true; if the constant prior on the whole parameter space is bad, so will be the constant prior over the bounded set. The problem is, in part, that some people confuse proper priors with subjective priors and, having learned that true subjective priors are fine, incorrectly presume that weakly informative proper priors are fine. I have a few reactions to this: 1. I agree
2 0.96132004 482 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-23-Capitalism as a form of voluntarism
Introduction: Interesting discussion by Alex Tabarrok (following up on an article by Rebecca Solnit) on the continuum between voluntarism (or, more generally, non-cash transactions) and markets with monetary exchange. I just have a few comments of my own: 1. Solnit writes of “the iceberg economy,” which she characterizes as “based on gift economies, barter, mutual aid, and giving without hope of return . . . the relations between friends, between family members, the activities of volunteers or those who have chosen their vocation on principle rather than for profit.” I just wonder whether “barter” completely fits in here. Maybe it depends on context. Sometimes barter is an informal way of keeping track (you help me and I help you), but in settings of low liquidity I could imagine barter being simply an inefficient way of performing an economic transaction. 2. I am no expert on capitalism but my impression is that it’s not just about “competition and selfishness” but also is related to the
3 0.96109962 433 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-27-One way that psychology research is different than medical research
Introduction: Medical researchers care about main effects, psychologists care about interactions. In psychology, the main effects are typically obvious, and it’s only the interactions that are worth studying.
Introduction: Justin Kinney writes: Since your blog has discussed the “maximal information coefficient” (MIC) of Reshef et al., I figured you might want to see the critique that Gurinder Atwal and I have posted. In short, Reshef et al.’s central claim that MIC is “equitable” is incorrect. We [Kinney and Atwal] offer mathematical proof that the definition of “equitability” Reshef et al. propose is unsatisfiable—no nontrivial dependence measure, including MIC, has this property. Replicating the simulations in their paper with modestly larger data sets validates this finding. The heuristic notion of equitability, however, can be formalized instead as a self-consistency condition closely related to the Data Processing Inequality. Mutual information satisfies this new definition of equitability but MIC does not. We therefore propose that simply estimating mutual information will, in many cases, provide the sort of dependence measure Reshef et al. seek. For background, here are my two p
5 0.95929509 1787 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-04-Wanna be the next Tyler Cowen? It’s not as easy as you might think!
Introduction: Someone told me he ran into someone who said his goal was to be Tyler Cowen. OK, fine, it’s a worthy goal, but I don’t think it’s so easy .
6 0.95916474 1376 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-12-Simple graph WIN: the example of birthday frequencies
7 0.95904684 1479 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-01-Mothers and Moms
8 0.9575451 938 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-03-Comparing prediction errors
9 0.95733058 743 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-03-An argument that can’t possibly make sense
10 0.95448112 241 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-29-Ethics and statistics in development research
11 0.95217741 1584 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-19-Tradeoffs in information graphics
same-blog 12 0.95209885 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
13 0.95185584 1978 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-12-Fixing the race, ethnicity, and national origin questions on the U.S. Census
14 0.95144981 2143 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-22-The kluges of today are the textbook solutions of tomorrow.
15 0.95131254 1455 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-12-Probabilistic screening to get an approximate self-weighted sample
16 0.95077312 643 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-02-So-called Bayesian hypothesis testing is just as bad as regular hypothesis testing
17 0.95063269 278 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-15-Advice that might make sense for individuals but is negative-sum overall
18 0.94800508 38 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-18-Breastfeeding, infant hyperbilirubinemia, statistical graphics, and modern medicine
19 0.94558835 1757 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-11-My problem with the Lindley paradox
20 0.94432604 1258 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-10-Why display 6 years instead of 30?