andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2306 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Some asshole who has a bug up his ass about compressed sensing is spamming our comments with a bunch of sock puppets. All from the same IP address: “George Stoneriver,” Scott Wolfe,” and just plain “Paul,” all saying pretty much the same thing in the same sort of broken English (except for Paul, whose post was too short to do a dialect analysis). “Scott Wolfe” is a generic sort of name, but a quick google search reveals nothing related to this topic. “George Stoneriver” seems to have no internet presence at all (besides the comments at this blog). As for “Paul,” I don’t know, maybe the spammer was too lazy to invent a last name? Our spammer spends about half his time slamming the field of compressed sensing and the other half pumping up the work of someone named Xiteng Liu. There’s no excuse for this behavior. It’s horrible, a true abuse of our scholarly community. If Scott Adams wants to use a sock puppet, fine, the guy’s an artist and we should cut him some slack. If tha
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Some asshole who has a bug up his ass about compressed sensing is spamming our comments with a bunch of sock puppets. [sent-1, score-1.487]
2 All from the same IP address: “George Stoneriver,” Scott Wolfe,” and just plain “Paul,” all saying pretty much the same thing in the same sort of broken English (except for Paul, whose post was too short to do a dialect analysis). [sent-2, score-0.157]
3 “Scott Wolfe” is a generic sort of name, but a quick google search reveals nothing related to this topic. [sent-3, score-0.144]
4 “George Stoneriver” seems to have no internet presence at all (besides the comments at this blog). [sent-4, score-0.145]
5 As for “Paul,” I don’t know, maybe the spammer was too lazy to invent a last name? [sent-5, score-0.389]
6 Our spammer spends about half his time slamming the field of compressed sensing and the other half pumping up the work of someone named Xiteng Liu. [sent-6, score-1.089]
7 It’s horrible, a true abuse of our scholarly community. [sent-8, score-0.151]
8 If Scott Adams wants to use a sock puppet, fine, the guy’s an artist and we should cut him some slack. [sent-9, score-0.476]
9 If that’s what it takes for him to get his creative juices flowing, I’ll accept it. [sent-10, score-0.075]
10 But to use sock puppets to try to trash legitimate scientific work, that’s not cool. [sent-11, score-0.659]
11 I can only assume that Xiteng Liu would not appreciate that someone is spamming websites on his behalf. [sent-12, score-0.526]
12 It’s not good for someone’s reputation to be associated with a sock puppet. [sent-13, score-0.453]
13 I know that if someone were spamming on behalf of my research, I’d be really annoyed. [sent-14, score-0.515]
14 I realized I used “ass” twice in my first sentence above. [sent-17, score-0.122]
15 Feel free to switch in some other expletive to make the sentence flow better. [sent-19, score-0.274]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('sock', 0.386), ('spamming', 0.298), ('stoneriver', 0.228), ('spammer', 0.215), ('xiteng', 0.215), ('scott', 0.204), ('wolfe', 0.188), ('ass', 0.188), ('sensing', 0.188), ('compressed', 0.176), ('paul', 0.165), ('someone', 0.129), ('sentence', 0.122), ('george', 0.115), ('carron', 0.108), ('igor', 0.108), ('ip', 0.108), ('flowing', 0.108), ('puppets', 0.108), ('puppet', 0.108), ('half', 0.102), ('invent', 0.099), ('websites', 0.099), ('asshole', 0.099), ('trash', 0.096), ('spends', 0.094), ('name', 0.092), ('artist', 0.09), ('behalf', 0.088), ('abuse', 0.084), ('adams', 0.084), ('slamming', 0.083), ('liu', 0.081), ('flow', 0.08), ('besides', 0.08), ('bug', 0.08), ('broken', 0.079), ('plain', 0.078), ('excuse', 0.077), ('reveals', 0.076), ('creative', 0.075), ('lazy', 0.075), ('presence', 0.073), ('comments', 0.072), ('switch', 0.072), ('legitimate', 0.069), ('generic', 0.068), ('scholarly', 0.067), ('reputation', 0.067), ('english', 0.064)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
Introduction: Some asshole who has a bug up his ass about compressed sensing is spamming our comments with a bunch of sock puppets. All from the same IP address: “George Stoneriver,” Scott Wolfe,” and just plain “Paul,” all saying pretty much the same thing in the same sort of broken English (except for Paul, whose post was too short to do a dialect analysis). “Scott Wolfe” is a generic sort of name, but a quick google search reveals nothing related to this topic. “George Stoneriver” seems to have no internet presence at all (besides the comments at this blog). As for “Paul,” I don’t know, maybe the spammer was too lazy to invent a last name? Our spammer spends about half his time slamming the field of compressed sensing and the other half pumping up the work of someone named Xiteng Liu. There’s no excuse for this behavior. It’s horrible, a true abuse of our scholarly community. If Scott Adams wants to use a sock puppet, fine, the guy’s an artist and we should cut him some slack. If tha
2 0.29810563 2298 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-21-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon : Ticket to Baaaath Tues : Ticket to Baaaaarf Wed : Thinking of doing a list experiment? Here’s a list of reasons why you should think again Thurs : An open site for researchers to post and share papers Fri : Questions about “Too Good to Be True” Sat : Sleazy sock puppet can’t stop spamming our discussion of compressed sensing and promoting the work of Xiteng Liu Sun : White stripes and dead armadillos
3 0.21876574 2160 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-06-Spam names
Introduction: There was this thing going around awhile ago, the “porn star name,” which you create by taking the name of your childhood pet, followed by the name of the street where you grew up (for example, Blitz Clifton). But recently I’ve been thinking about spam names. Just in the last two days, I’ve received emails from “Blair Williams” (“I’m sorry to have to tell you this. Tomorrow is the last day that the 40% discount will be available.”), “Audrey Woods” (“I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that we just launched an infographic . . .”), “Steven Harris” (“Part-Time Job – Earn $600/day in your spare-time”), and “Nick Bagnall” (“I sent you an email some weeks ago concerning . . .”). Actually, I think “Nick Bagnall” is probably a real person who’s just spamming me. But the first three names above look fake fake fake. And then there were “George Stoneriver,” Scott Wolfe,” and just plain “Paul,” who were sockpuppeting our discussion on compressed sensing a couple months ago. And do
4 0.15118989 2079 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-27-Uncompressing the concept of compressed sensing
Introduction: I received the following email: These compressed sensing people link to Shannon’s advice . It’s refreshing when leaders of a field state that their stuff may not be a panacea. I replied: Scarily enough, I don’t know anything about this research area at all! My correspondent followed up: Meh. They proved L1 approximates L0 when design matrix is basically full rank. Now all sparsity stuff is sometimes called ‘compressed sensing’. Most of it seems to be linear interpolation, rebranded. I wrote back: But rebranding/reframing can be useful! Often reframing is a step in the direction of improvement, of better understanding one’s assumptions and goals.
5 0.13773213 2264 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this month
Introduction: Actually, more like the next month and a half . . . I just have this long backlog so I thought I might as well share it with you: Empirical implications of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models A statistical graphics course and statistical graphics advice What property is important in a risk prediction model? Discrimination or calibration? Beyond the Valley of the Trolls Science tells us that fast food lovers are more likely to marry other fast food lovers References (with code) for Bayesian hierarchical (multilevel) modeling and structural equation modeling Adjudicating between alternative interpretations of a statistical interaction? The most-cited statistics papers ever American Psychological Society announces a new journal Am I too negative? As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake Personally, I’d rather go with Teragram Bizarre academic spam An old discussion of food deserts Skepticism about a published cl
7 0.092824914 1532 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-13-A real-life dollar auction game!
9 0.072580487 1211 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-13-A personal bit of spam, just for me!
10 0.066189781 1588 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-23-No one knows what it’s like to be the bad man
11 0.065267108 755 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-09-Recently in the award-winning sister blog
12 0.060289934 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
13 0.060260858 716 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-17-Is the internet causing half the rapes in Norway? I wanna see the scatterplot.
14 0.056872018 1882 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-03-The statistical properties of smart chains (and referral chains more generally)
15 0.054907709 1044 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-06-The K Foundation burns Cosma’s turkey
16 0.054611497 2108 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-20-That’s crazy talk!
17 0.053918671 2075 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-23-PubMed Commons: A system for commenting on articles in PubMed
18 0.053421404 1787 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-04-Wanna be the next Tyler Cowen? It’s not as easy as you might think!
19 0.05262778 1604 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-An epithet I can live with
20 0.051915087 763 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-Inventor of Connect Four dies at 91
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.091), (1, -0.053), (2, -0.037), (3, 0.015), (4, 0.007), (5, -0.005), (6, 0.034), (7, -0.036), (8, 0.016), (9, -0.031), (10, -0.01), (11, 0.015), (12, 0.049), (13, 0.034), (14, -0.018), (15, 0.025), (16, -0.001), (17, -0.022), (18, 0.017), (19, 0.014), (20, -0.007), (21, -0.011), (22, 0.019), (23, -0.017), (24, 0.006), (25, -0.03), (26, 0.003), (27, 0.033), (28, -0.059), (29, 0.019), (30, 0.041), (31, 0.019), (32, 0.012), (33, 0.004), (34, -0.031), (35, 0.002), (36, 0.005), (37, 0.007), (38, -0.019), (39, 0.006), (40, -0.002), (41, -0.006), (42, 0.019), (43, 0.026), (44, 0.023), (45, 0.016), (46, 0.005), (47, -0.021), (48, 0.007), (49, 0.011)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.93988675 2306 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-26-Sleazy sock puppet can’t stop spamming our discussion of compressed sensing and promoting the work of Xiteng Liu
Introduction: Some asshole who has a bug up his ass about compressed sensing is spamming our comments with a bunch of sock puppets. All from the same IP address: “George Stoneriver,” Scott Wolfe,” and just plain “Paul,” all saying pretty much the same thing in the same sort of broken English (except for Paul, whose post was too short to do a dialect analysis). “Scott Wolfe” is a generic sort of name, but a quick google search reveals nothing related to this topic. “George Stoneriver” seems to have no internet presence at all (besides the comments at this blog). As for “Paul,” I don’t know, maybe the spammer was too lazy to invent a last name? Our spammer spends about half his time slamming the field of compressed sensing and the other half pumping up the work of someone named Xiteng Liu. There’s no excuse for this behavior. It’s horrible, a true abuse of our scholarly community. If Scott Adams wants to use a sock puppet, fine, the guy’s an artist and we should cut him some slack. If tha
2 0.77963144 2160 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-06-Spam names
Introduction: There was this thing going around awhile ago, the “porn star name,” which you create by taking the name of your childhood pet, followed by the name of the street where you grew up (for example, Blitz Clifton). But recently I’ve been thinking about spam names. Just in the last two days, I’ve received emails from “Blair Williams” (“I’m sorry to have to tell you this. Tomorrow is the last day that the 40% discount will be available.”), “Audrey Woods” (“I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that we just launched an infographic . . .”), “Steven Harris” (“Part-Time Job – Earn $600/day in your spare-time”), and “Nick Bagnall” (“I sent you an email some weeks ago concerning . . .”). Actually, I think “Nick Bagnall” is probably a real person who’s just spamming me. But the first three names above look fake fake fake. And then there were “George Stoneriver,” Scott Wolfe,” and just plain “Paul,” who were sockpuppeting our discussion on compressed sensing a couple months ago. And do
3 0.72433114 1211 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-13-A personal bit of spam, just for me!
Introduction: Hi Andrew, I came across your site while searching for blogs and posts around American obesity and wanted to reach out to get your readership’s feedback on an infographic my team built which focuses on the obesity of America and where we could end up at the going rate. If you’re interested, let’s connect. Have a great weekend! Thanks. *** I have to say, that’s pretty pitiful, to wish someone a “great weekend” on a Tuesday! This guy’s gotta ratchet up his sophistication a few notches if he ever wants to get a job as a spammer for a major software company , for example.
4 0.72121167 763 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-Inventor of Connect Four dies at 91
Introduction: Obit here . I think I have a cousin with the same last name as this guy, so maybe we’re related by marriage in some way. (By that standard we’re also related to Marge Simpson and, I seem to recall, the guy who wrote the scripts for Dark Shadows.)
5 0.71881402 204 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Sloppily-written slam on moderately celebrated writers is amusing nonetheless
Introduction: Via J. Robert Lennon , I discovered this amusing blog by Anis Shivani on “The 15 Most Overrated Contemporary American Writers.” Lennon found it so annoying that he refused to even link to it, but I actually enjoyed Shivani’s bit of performance art. The literary criticism I see is so focused on individual books that it’s refreshing to see someone take on an entire author’s career in a single paragraph. I agree with Lennon that Shivani’s blog doesn’t have much content –it’s full of terms such as “vacuity” and “pap,” compared to which “trendy” and “fashionable” are precision instruments–but Shivani covers a lot of ground and it’s fun to see this all in one place. My main complaint with Shivani, beyond his sloppy writing (but, hey, it’s just a blog; I’m sure he saves the good stuff for his paid gigs) is his implicit assumption that everyone should agree with him. I’m as big a Kazin fan as anyone, but I still think he completely undervalued Marquand . The other thing I noticed
6 0.69826794 1007 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-13-At last, treated with the disrespect that I deserve
7 0.69390726 1193 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-03-“Do you guys pay your bills?”
8 0.69320691 1421 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-19-Alexa, Maricel, and Marty: Three cellular automata who got on my nerves
9 0.69187599 1293 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-01-Huff the Magic Dragon
10 0.68522757 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
11 0.67888945 640 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-31-Why Edit Wikipedia?
12 0.67571849 505 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-05-Wacky interview questions: An exploration into the nature of evidence on the internet
13 0.67569911 664 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-16-Dilbert update: cartooning can give you the strength to open jars with your bare hands
14 0.67526948 1177 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-20-Joshua Clover update
15 0.67280799 1457 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-13-Retro ethnic slurs
16 0.67204237 1210 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-12-Plagiarists are in the habit of lying
18 0.66564578 1780 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-28-Racism!
19 0.664253 129 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-05-Unrelated to all else
20 0.6637792 1561 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-04-Someone is wrong on the internet
topicId topicWeight
[(1, 0.025), (9, 0.063), (15, 0.038), (16, 0.074), (21, 0.192), (24, 0.13), (51, 0.02), (61, 0.012), (62, 0.022), (64, 0.025), (74, 0.012), (77, 0.026), (89, 0.038), (93, 0.023), (94, 0.025), (99, 0.175)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.92513371 672 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-The R code for those time-use graphs
Introduction: By popular demand, here’s my R script for the time-use graphs : # The data a1 <- c(4.2,3.2,11.1,1.3,2.2,2.0) a2 <- c(3.9,3.2,10.0,0.8,3.1,3.1) a3 <- c(6.3,2.5,9.8,0.9,2.2,2.4) a4 <- c(4.4,3.1,9.8,0.8,3.3,2.7) a5 <- c(4.8,3.0,9.9,0.7,3.3,2.4) a6 <- c(4.0,3.4,10.5,0.7,3.3,2.1) a <- rbind(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6) avg <- colMeans (a) avg.array <- t (array (avg, rev(dim(a)))) diff <- a - avg.array country.name <- c("France", "Germany", "Japan", "Britain", "USA", "Turkey") # The line plots par (mfrow=c(2,3), mar=c(4,4,2,.5), mgp=c(2,.7,0), tck=-.02, oma=c(3,0,4,0), bg="gray96", fg="gray30") for (i in 1:6){ plot (c(1,6), c(-1,1.7), xlab="", ylab="", xaxt="n", yaxt="n", bty="l", type="n") lines (1:6, diff[i,], col="blue") points (1:6, diff[i,], pch=19, col="black") if (i>3){ axis (1, c(1,3,5), c ("Work,\nstudy", "Eat,\nsleep", "Leisure"), mgp=c(2,1.5,0), tck=0, cex.axis=1.2) axis (1, c(2,4,6), c ("Unpaid\nwork", "Personal\nCare", "Other"), mgp=c(2,1.5,0),
same-blog 2 0.92373264 2306 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-26-Sleazy sock puppet can’t stop spamming our discussion of compressed sensing and promoting the work of Xiteng Liu
Introduction: Some asshole who has a bug up his ass about compressed sensing is spamming our comments with a bunch of sock puppets. All from the same IP address: “George Stoneriver,” Scott Wolfe,” and just plain “Paul,” all saying pretty much the same thing in the same sort of broken English (except for Paul, whose post was too short to do a dialect analysis). “Scott Wolfe” is a generic sort of name, but a quick google search reveals nothing related to this topic. “George Stoneriver” seems to have no internet presence at all (besides the comments at this blog). As for “Paul,” I don’t know, maybe the spammer was too lazy to invent a last name? Our spammer spends about half his time slamming the field of compressed sensing and the other half pumping up the work of someone named Xiteng Liu. There’s no excuse for this behavior. It’s horrible, a true abuse of our scholarly community. If Scott Adams wants to use a sock puppet, fine, the guy’s an artist and we should cut him some slack. If tha
3 0.91935474 151 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-16-Wanted: Probability distributions for rank orderings
Introduction: Dietrich Stoyan writes: I asked the IMS people for an expert in statistics of voting/elections and they wrote me your name. I am a statistician, but never worked in the field voting/elections. It was my son-in-law who asked me for statistical theories in that field. He posed in particular the following problem: The aim of the voting is to come to a ranking of c candidates. Every vote is a permutation of these c candidates. The problem is to have probability distributions in the set of all permutations of c elements. Are there theories for such distributions? I should be very grateful for a fast answer with hints to literature. (I confess that I do not know your books.) My reply: Rather than trying to model the ranks directly, I’d recommend modeling a latent continuous outcome which then implies a distribution on ranks, if the ranks are of interest. There are lots of distributions of c-dimensional continuous outcomes. In political science, the usual way to start is
Introduction: Erin Jonaitis points us to this article by Christopher Ferguson and Moritz Heene, who write: Publication bias remains a controversial issue in psychological science. . . . that the field often constructs arguments to block the publication and interpretation of null results and that null results may be further extinguished through questionable researcher practices. Given that science is dependent on the process of falsification, we argue that these problems reduce psychological science’s capability to have a proper mechanism for theory falsification, thus resulting in the promulgation of numerous “undead” theories that are ideologically popular but have little basis in fact. They mention the infamous Daryl Bem article. It is pretty much only because Bem’s claims are (presumably) false that they got published in a major research journal. Had the claims been true—that is, had Bem run identical experiments, analyzed his data more carefully and objectively, and reported that the r
5 0.90775609 2298 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-21-On deck this week
Introduction: Mon : Ticket to Baaaath Tues : Ticket to Baaaaarf Wed : Thinking of doing a list experiment? Here’s a list of reasons why you should think again Thurs : An open site for researchers to post and share papers Fri : Questions about “Too Good to Be True” Sat : Sleazy sock puppet can’t stop spamming our discussion of compressed sensing and promoting the work of Xiteng Liu Sun : White stripes and dead armadillos
7 0.8932215 1275 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-22-Please stop me before I barf again
8 0.89078563 1401 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-30-David Hogg on statistics
9 0.88907862 432 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-27-Neumann update
10 0.88168424 62 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-01-Two Postdoc Positions Available on Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling
11 0.87924844 894 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-07-Hipmunk FAIL: Graphics without content is not enough
12 0.87671423 1675 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-15-“10 Things You Need to Know About Causal Effects”
13 0.87298942 514 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-13-News coverage of statistical issues…how did I do?
15 0.85448122 1232 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-27-Banned in NYC school tests
16 0.85391766 810 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-20-Adding more information can make the variance go up (depending on your model)
17 0.85354388 659 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-13-Jim Campbell argues that Larry Bartels’s “Unequal Democracy” findings are not robust
18 0.85003126 1857 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-15-Does quantum uncertainty have a place in everyday applied statistics?
19 0.8466897 854 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-15-A silly paper that tries to make fun of multilevel models
20 0.83730638 537 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-25-Postdoc Position #1: Missing-Data Imputation, Diagnostics, and Applications