Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: It is all about followers (Score 3, Interesting) 21

by mysterons (#47010441) Attached to: Data Mining Reveals How Wording Influences Tweet Propagation
We did a study on predicting when a tweet would be retweeted (this paper cites us). The dominant factor is not what you write, but how many followers you have.

Basically, a famous person can write anything and it will be retweeted. An unknown person can write the same tweet and it will be ignored.

Link to paper:

Sasa Petrovic, Miles Osborne and Victor Lavrenko. RT to win! Predicting Message Propagation in Twitter. ICWSM, Barcelona, Spain. July 2011.

Comment: Re:Cheapskate? (Score 1) 146

by mysterons (#46756355) Attached to: How Amazon Keeps Cutting AWS Prices: Cheapskate Culture
People here are forgetting the costs associated with flying senior (ie expensive) people around. There is an argument that if you are billing a client for three figure sums a day, you had better ensure that the person flying arrives in good shape so they can work straight from the flight. Sending people coach can be a false economy.

Comment: Economics (Score 2) 114

by mysterons (#45326961) Attached to: Hoax-Proofing the Open Access Journals
A major problem with open-access journals is that there is no motivation for them to reject submissions, If anything, the more they publish the more money they make. Likewise, peer reviewers (at least in my field --natural language processing and machine learning) are never paid to review them. This is not a good combination. I cannot see any reason for journals nowadays. Either publish in conferences (which in some fields are competitive and very tightly reviewed) or better still publish them on arvXiv and have some kind of citation / comment system as a way to crowd-source quality control.

Comment: Re:replication (Score 1) 316

by mysterons (#45166511) Attached to: How Science Goes Wrong
if you want to go to the other extreme look at SIGIR. They have extremely demanding standards for experimentation, along with an associated conservative nature. It is very hard to get something non-incremental (eg using some new dataset) published there. But I agree, experiments at ACL tend to be quite sloppy.

Comment: Re:replication (Score 1) 316

by mysterons (#45166441) Attached to: How Science Goes Wrong
Being plausible and being reproducible are not sufficient and necessary conditions. Science is a community, with an expectation of what a believable result should look like. This comes from actually understanding the field, including what is written and what is not written down. It is very rare for there to be some genuinely implausible result and Good Science typically seems obvious in hindsight.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud