No, but I don't think I should. Pat Benatar. Hmmmm.

Jealously research?

Are they searching under the Denver airport yet?

Gee, you guys are all famous !

Oh, that is weird.

Maybe it's post-modern poetry, academia-style? Using LGF comments as gibberish to transcend interpretation?

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

A comparison of "post similarity" between LGF and Kos?

WEIRDNESS,
R

song_and_dance 4 3
song_and_dance_man 2150 260
song_and_danceman 1 1
song_and_wrath_man 2 2
songanddanceman 2 1
songberd 1 1

I so want a sock called song and wrath man, but it's not my style. Not the wrath thing, but posting under a new name.

"/experiments/post_similarity/" (from the URL)

Suggests that it is an algoritm to detect people posting with multiple handle, maybe? To see if the posts' contents can be used to ID the poster w/o regard to the handle? Just guessing.

More info on this particular project...

Oooh, I'm in there too, several times. Here I am talking about "Anthem," the Ayn Rand novella (formatted Carnegie-Mellon stylee):

re _meta_number_ref_ zombie anthem is the only book of hers i ever recommend

you can tell you re over the target by the amount of flak you are getting _meta_end_dot_

re _meta_number_ref_ mandymanners amen

re _meta_number_ref_ zombie

re _meta_number_ref_ zombie jwm

re _meta_number_ref_ zombie anthem and it s more like a novella or long short story you can read it in a day or two _meta_end_dot_ highly recommended a completely devastating critique of collectivism and communistic society _meta_end_dot_ that s the only rand book that i have read i read it in _meta_number_ref_th grade along with animal farm

Ta Da!

Here is the paper.

That's some weird shit they got going on there.

You can download the python scripts one directory up and there's a Kos directory too. Probably just too what they consider to be partisan sites to test some kind of language algorithms or something, but it's kind of fun to see the actual code.

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

Monitors
In
The
Classroom

P

Hmmmm. URL includes "post similarity". And a bunch of lizard names: zombie, babbazee, alouette, cattt, doriangray, savage, mandy...

Most of the snippets on the page you linked to seem to originate from lionheart/BNP period.

Maybe this page explains something?

re: #10 Dan G.

Ta Da!

Here is the paper.

But that's an old paper from 2004. The comments in the first link above are much more recent.

They use python, which is more lizard oriented than perl.

A quick look made me wonder if they were grabbing comments from the lounge.

from readme on the /experiments page

Keep only the staff need to be on the web site.
most of the real experiment results should be kept in:
malbec.ark.cs.cmu.edu/~polit/

Obviously it's a KGB plot.

The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election:
Divided They Blog
4 March 2005

Abstract
In this paper, we study the linking patterns and discussion topics of political bloggers. Our aim is to measure the degree of interaction between liberal and conservative blogs, and to uncover any differences in the structure of the two communities. Specifically, we analyze the posts of 40 “A-list” blogs over the period of two months preceding the U.S. Presidential Election of 2004, to study how often they referred to one another and to quantify the overlap in the topics they discussed, both within the liberal and conservative communities, and also across communities. We also study a single day snapshot of over 1,000 political blogs. This snapshot captures blogrolls (the list of links to other blogs frequently found in sidebars), and presents a more static picture of a broader blogosphere. Most significantly, we find differences in the
behavior of liberal and conservative blogs, with conservative blogs linking to each other more frequently and in a denser pattern.

re: #6 Render

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

A comparison of "post similarity" between LGF and Kos?

WEIRDNESS,
R

Close. I think they are doing a text analysis looking for Charles' sock puppets -- like the way some trolls accuse Robert Spencer of posting as Hugh on his website... a way to broadcast controversial opinions yet keep your hands clean.

re: #10 Dan G.

Ta Da!

Here is the paper.

OK, here's the Abstract:

Abstract
In this paper, we study the linking patterns and discussion topics of political bloggers.
Our aim is to measure the degree of interaction between liberal and conservative blogs, and
to uncover any differences in the structure of the two communities. Specifically, we analyze
the posts of 40 “A-list” blogs over the period of two months preceding the U.S. Presidential
Election of 2004, to study how often they referred to one another and to quantify the overlap in
the topics they discussed, both within the liberal and conservative communities, and also across
communities. We also study a single day snapshot of over 1,000 political blogs. This snapshot
captures blogrolls (the list of links to other blogs frequently found in sidebars), and presents
a more static picture of a broader blogosphere. Most significantly, we find differences in the
behavior of liberal and conservative blogs, with conservative blogs linking to each other more
frequently and in a denser pattern.

Talk about pointless.

People get PhDs for this crap.

Mandy will not be pleased. May give rise to foul language. Warning.

re: #16 Charles

But that's an old paper from 2004. The comments in the first link above are much more recent.

Looks like they are doing another election-year study looking at patterns of argument or other aspects of communication.

It is a correlation engine.

Here is the dictionary - frequencies posted after each word.

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

Based on the use of the term "sim" in the naming structures and the structure of the input files, I guess the engine is being run through multiple simulations.

For what purpose I don't know.

I'm not in that experiment?

DISCRMIANTOIN!111

/lunch tiem, bbl

I don't think that paper is for the current experiment.

It's years older than the comments at the first link above.

Following Zombie...

===

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

"Keep only the staff need to be on the web site.
most of the real experiment results should be kept in:"
malbec.ark.cs.cmu.edu/~polit/

===

EH?,
R

re: #16 Charles

But that's an old paper from 2004. The comments in the first link above are much more recent.

Perhaps they are running the experiment again for this election season, or for some other event...

Smells like they are trolling the comments looking for sockpuppets - either sockpuppets here, or socks that post here and elsewhere.

Perhaps it's a project to gather information on the posters and compare for similarities to other posting identities elsewhere, with maybe an end-goal to reveal actual the identities of the commentators here.

Nothing like using software to do the job many of us have done by hand when we suspect a sock in amongst a forum we frequent.

In light of the language in their file names and directory structure, it seems like a formal request for them to declare their intent would be reasonable, IMHO, of course.

re: #21 zombie

Piled Higher and Deeper?

re: #26 Charles

I don't think that paper is for the current experiment.

It's years older than the comments at the first link above.

True. I mused about getting a sock called song and wrath man in the past few months.

re: #21 zombie

Talk about pointless.

People get PhDs for this crap.

It's mostly about determining communications/relationships amongst people with similar politics... I'm sure it would find application in the advertising industry (read spam industry)

re: #10 Dan G.

Ta Da!

Here is the paper.

The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election:
Divided They Blog

/only problem is that the comments on that page are recent

Oooooh, look at this page.

re: #29 justacanuck

Smells like they are trolling the comments looking for sockpuppets - either sockpuppets here, or socks that post here and elsewhere.

Perhaps it's a project to gather information on the posters and compare for similarities to other posting identities elsewhere, with maybe an end-goal to reveal actual the identities of the commentators here.

Nothing like using software to do the job many of us have done by hand when we suspect a sock in amongst a forum we frequent.

In light of the language in their file names and directory structure, it seems like a formal request for them to declare their intent would be reasonable, IMHO, of course.

I doubt they're interested in individual identities. Sounds like they're interested in things like the nature of online networks (e.g., which blogs link to which other blogs). I'm sure they would respond to an inquiry about the purpose of their study.

They're using pretty recent stuff. One of the input files references about 60 threads with numbers mostly in the 28000-28600 range.

Experiment will not work. Different blogs have different rules. Michelle deletes me with unusual vigor. Others do not care. the subject matter and initial commentary are different, as are the posters. E.G. Michelle's are boring, it is much more stimulating here.

re: #34 zombie

Oooooh, look at this page.

Interesting quote:

Did some experiment on comment prediction with link-plsa-lda. Withheld the comment information of 204 users from the training set. Then computed log-likelihoods of their comments on each blog post (985 post * 204 user = 201105 data points) according to the trained model. 5678 positive (i.e., there in fact is a comment by the user on the post) and 195427 negative examples. Below is the results.

Comment prediction?

/Get out of my head!

Here is the python script to run the correlation engine

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

Time to go looking at the other blogs they are running....

Yes, they are using NEW comments, but likely doing the SAME thing since the paper etc.. are all in the same project directory "TP" ("Talking Points"). It could be the collection of additional data for the data set.

Well, this pretty much explains everything.

re: #38 zombie

Is this an attempt to pass the Turing Test?

Here's the paper:

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

I'm no expert, but.. port sniffing?

re: #40 Dan G.

That is the way I see it.

Artificial intelligence? [pdf]

Who ever thought that garbage labeled as "research" could be so sophisticated and at the same time be so worthless. Shit like this gives PhDs a bad name for good reason. Polishing farts to get Piled higher and Deeper has become, for the most part, an ephemeral exercise in self deception.

re: #38 zombie

This isn't that advanced of stuff - we are working on a simillar concept for internal corporate communications. This has been around a while.

What a bunch of BS. .....Fail

They are testing for similarity in posts? As in do we group think?

re: #43 Charles

Hey Charles - you have f'd up their model by introducing comment rating and spinoff links.

re: #21 zombie

Talk about pointless.

People get PhDs for this crap.

Perhaps its a repeat of his 2004 masterwork, (cough) now refined for the 2008 election season.

Creepy!

re: #51 karmic_inquisitor

Likely true. I spend most of my time on links researching now. So do others.

re: #49 pat

What a bunch of BS. .....Fail

Are they trying to figure out how we think?

re: #47 gymnast

Who ever thought that garbage labeled as "research" could be so sophisticated and at the same time be so worthless. Shit like this gives PhDs a bad name for good reason. Polishing farts to get Piled higher and Deeper has become, for the most part, an ephemeral exercise in self deception.

I don't think that this stuff is useless, it may be dated as #48 suggests, but automated compiliation of hot topics is rougly what google news is...

(reuter run the same story, LGF respond twice in the like mnnaer.)

re: #50 slokat

They are testing for similarity in posts? As in do we group think?

Every group does group think. The patterns are a bit disconcerting at first glance but then make sense when you think about them.

Most businesses use email to destroy original thought. I can prove that.

The Matrix has you Timberlake

EXPERIMENTATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

/I demand compensation for being used as an unwilling test subject!

I wonder if linking to their experiment will introduce fatal feedback loops, leading to a disturbance in the Krell mind-field and possible space-time discontinuity?

re: #58 karmic_inquisitor

Every group does group think. The patterns are a bit disconcerting at first glance but then make sense when you think about them.

Most businesses use email to destroy original thought. I can prove that.

Sounds like a future Dilbert strip.

re: #55 The Other Les

Yes. Exactly. And to identify cross posters. All they had to do was ask.

re: #44 Yankee Division Son

I'm no expert, but.. port sniffing?

What is port sniffing?

Man, I'm digging through their entire directory system, including trashed/deleted files. No restrictions.

Don't these people know how to protect their directories? Amateurish.

I mean, they're doing statistical analysis of LGF comments, and they don't know thing one about Internet security? I thought these people were PhD candidates in computer science or something. Maybe statistics? Political science?

re: #61 Charles

Maybe it'll start up the Large Hadron Collider and cause division by zero.

/OH SHI-

//actually goes to lunch nao

re: #65 zombie

Man, I'm digging through their entire directory system, including trashed/deleted files. No restrictions.

Don't these people know how to protect their directories? Amateurish.

I mean, they're doing statistical analysis of LGF comments, and they don't know thing one about Internet security? I thought these people were PhD candidates in computer science or something. Maybe statistics? Political science?

I know. It's wide open. Amazing.

re: #51 karmic_inquisitor

Hey Charles - you have f'd up their model by introducing comment rating and spinoff links.

I wonder if this thread screws up his project, if the subjects (i.e. us) know they're being experimented on it kind of screws up many experiements...

re: #64 JustMyView

What is port sniffing?

A technique to see what traffic is going over a network port. Used by hackers and network administrators alike.

This program could identify sock puppets, but won't. Because it is a dead end. As Karmic says.

re: #64 JustMyView

What is port sniffing?

/turn your head to the left and breathe through your nose

re: #65 zombie

Man, I'm digging through their entire directory system, including trashed/deleted files. No restrictions.

Don't these people know how to protect their directories? Amateurish.

I mean, they're doing statistical analysis of LGF comments, and they don't know thing one about Internet security? I thought these people were PhD candidates in computer science or something. Maybe statistics? Political science?

Computer Science

re: #61 Charles

I wonder if linking to their experiment will introduce fatal feedback loops, leading to a disturbance in the Krell mind-field and possible space-time discontinuity?

Um... didn't they blow up a planet that way?

re: #56 Dan G.

I don't think that this stuff is useless, it may be dated as #48 suggests, but automated compiliation of hot topics is rougly what google news is...

And Google news has what qualities that you are willing to allow it to do your thinking for you? Are you contextually illiterate?

Keep only the staff need to be on the web site.
most of the real experiment results should be kept in:
malbec.ark.cs.cmu.edu/~polit/

re: #43 Charles

Here's the paper:

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

Abstract
In this work, we address the twin problems of unsupervised
topic discovery and estimation of topic specific influence of
blogs. We propose a new model that can be used to provide a
user with highly influential blog postings on the topic of the
user’s interest.

Idiots. Using computer algorithms to determine how to made a good blog post?

How about this for a clue-byte, you bozos: Have political acumen!

Did pat say any thing snappy?

re: #56 Dan G.

I don't think that this stuff is useless, it may be dated as #48 suggests, but automated compiliation of hot topics is rougly what google news is...

Right. There are all sorts of reasons to be developing systems and tools to analyze large text databases. I have no idea what they're searching for, but it doesn't appear to be anything having to do w/ the content of the posts here.

[Link: www.cs.cmu.edu...]

(This link WILL become invalid soon!)

It looks to my un-Pythonesque eye like a programmer is using the cosine function to create some kind of mapping on how comments refer to one another based on comment location in the thread; and looking at different types of postings from Charles (open thread, breaking news, news outlet criticisms) to see if there are any trends in the discussions that vary according to the posting type.

That has to be one of the worst run-on sentences I've ever written.

From one of the files:

topic 003
3253 mccain
2526 huckabe
4497 romnei
4527 rudi
2229 gop
2194 giuliani
3368 mitt
2525 huck
5310 think
3323 mike

topic 006
2212 god
4350 religion
864 christian
445 believ
4352 religi
875 church
3412 mormon
1882 faith
4384 republican
302 atheist

re: #65 zombie

Man, I'm digging through their entire directory system, including trashed/deleted files. No restrictions.

Don't these people know how to protect their directories? Amateurish.

I mean, they're doing statistical analysis of LGF comments, and they don't know thing one about Internet security? I thought these people were PhD candidates in computer science or something. Maybe statistics? Political science?

At the level of dumb I'd have to say it was Political Science.

who is lionheart?

re: #74 gymnast

And Google news has what qualities that you are willing to allow it to do your thinking for you? Are you contextually illiterate

Fetching news for me isn't thinking for me... "contextually illiterate"... define that please.