Comments on: On the robustness of Twitter and false SAT Analogies https://www.smrfoundation.org/2009/08/09/on-the-robustness-of-twitter-and-false-sat-analogies/ Tools and data for social media network insights Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:18:03 +0000 hourly 1 By: ecig reviews https://www.smrfoundation.org/2009/08/09/on-the-robustness-of-twitter-and-false-sat-analogies/comment-page-1/#comment-328 Sun, 12 Sep 2010 16:13:38 +0000 http://www.connectedaction.net/?p=1513#comment-328 Don’t see Twitter or any social media sites going anywhere for a long time.

]]> By: marianasoffer https://www.smrfoundation.org/2009/08/09/on-the-robustness-of-twitter-and-false-sat-analogies/comment-page-1/#comment-327 Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:29:27 +0000 http://www.connectedaction.net/?p=1513#comment-327 Mr turney already developed a method to calculat the sat analogy results that works perfectly fine, much better than in humans, and on top of that he develop his famous aprisal measurement method which is a semisupervised one (oonly 7 good and 7 bad examples) and the hole corpus from the web used to learn from, so I think you are not right about what you are saying, what thing more robust do you want than something that has a more than a 90% accuracy in measusing the direction of the adjective using almost the entire corpora of the www. And now you are telling me that twitter is a more robust thing, which are simple sentences that barely have a background, Not to mention the very little percentage of information it has compared with a hole searcher result set.

Did I missunderstand your argument? what is it that you say here that I do not get?

http://apperceptual.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/beyond-proportional-analogy/

]]> By: Cody Brown https://www.smrfoundation.org/2009/08/09/on-the-robustness-of-twitter-and-false-sat-analogies/comment-page-1/#comment-326 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:27:13 +0000 http://www.connectedaction.net/?p=1513#comment-326 Interesting angle but I think what you say is wrong about MySpace also applies to Twitter in a big way:

“It offered users unlimited means of self-expression without a single overarching paradigm.”

140 characters is the only restriction in communication in twitter. The site does not direct any overarching paradigm – this is decided individually (and often, even this will shift).

The list of features you suggest are complex. Even if they are implemented well, once you start bootstrapping that much your experience on the site will be sharply different than the common experience. This will create an even more disparate set of users.

I’m not saying Twitter is bad so much as Twitter, started as one thing, we’ve stumbled upon an even greater use for the product and it’s now about whether Twitter as a company can develop that use properly. I don’t think they can. That overarching paradigm, just doesn’t exist for Twitter. It’s potential as a website that enables you to hear and communicate to a public is much to important for 140 characters.

]]>