3 ms·

Meta comment - this article was originally submitted 7 hours ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678163). The

by jonmc12 15y ago

Meta comment - this article was originally submitted 7 hours ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678163). The article was then submitted a second time just recently with an alias url '/?p=291', presumably with the proper voting rings in place. Is this an accepted tactic for promoting articles on HN?

blauwbilgorgel 15y ago
They seem to jump on any chance to promote their technology. Very aggressive and annoying marketing. If the articles had any meat to them, I'd nod and move on, but this seems just a cheap plug. My BS-meter went way up, when I scrolled down and saw the charts that conveniently "verified" the sentiment on Hacker News. I hope they don't think I typed this message, because I am depressed and lack compassion.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  More meta: at this point I have no reason to see their measurements as anything other than hocus-pocus. What I've read of their description of it so far has amounted to classifying words -- context-free -- as "anxious" words, "depressed" words, and so on, and then simply counting their occurrence in text. I would be hugely surprised if that actually gave reliable results! Human languages are hugely nuanced and context is a key part of interpreting mood in text, and even humans fail often at that. People often express surprise, for example, at pg's personality in person or in televised events, because his comments often seem (as one person put it) "Vulcan". I'm starting to try to think of ways to thoroughly debunk their method, mostly because I'm curious if it would actually stand up.
tomerico 15y ago
Another meta comment :) The bar charts in the article would have been much easier to read if the horizontal axis would start at "typical". That way low would be seen as negative, while high would be seen as positive.
shawndrost 15y ago
"The article was then submitted a second time just recently with an alias url '/?p=291'" -- yes "presumably with the proper voting rings in place" -- [citation, etc]
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I doubt there were voting rings. Rather they probably just thought to give it another go. I can say that I'm honestly surprised about what drops off of "new" with just two or three votes, compared to some of what is on the front page. I can't help but believe that if some of this content was resubmitted, it would do much better.

by jonmc12 15y ago

blauwbilgorgel 15y ago

They seem to jump on any chance to promote their technology. Very aggressive and annoying marketing. If the articles had any meat to them, I'd nod and move on, but this seems just a cheap plug. My BS-meter went way up, when I scrolled down and saw the charts that conveniently "verified" the sentiment on Hacker News. I hope they don't think I typed this message, because I am depressed and lack compassion.

thaumaturgy 15y ago
More meta: at this point I have no reason to see their measurements as anything other than hocus-pocus. What I've read of their description of it so far has amounted to classifying words -- context-free -- as "anxious" words, "depressed" words, and so on, and then simply counting their occurrence in text. I would be hugely surprised if that actually gave reliable results! Human languages are hugely nuanced and context is a key part of interpreting mood in text, and even humans fail often at that. People often express surprise, for example, at pg's personality in person or in televised events, because his comments often seem (as one person put it) "Vulcan". I'm starting to try to think of ways to thoroughly debunk their method, mostly because I'm curious if it would actually stand up.

tomerico 15y ago

Another meta comment :) The bar charts in the article would have been much easier to read if the horizontal axis would start at "typical". That way low would be seen as negative, while high would be seen as positive.

shawndrost 15y ago

"The article was then submitted a second time just recently with an alias url '/?p=291'" -- yes "presumably with the proper voting rings in place" -- [citation, etc]

kenjackson 15y ago
I doubt there were voting rings. Rather they probably just thought to give it another go. I can say that I'm honestly surprised about what drops off of "new" with just two or three votes, compared to some of what is on the front page. I can't help but believe that if some of this content was resubmitted, it would do much better.