Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

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

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. http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/...

Comment: Re:Cheapskate? (Score 1) 146 146

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) 114 114

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) 316 316

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) 316 316

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.

"I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin

Working...