|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 09:08 AM EST |
My sixth grade teacher had some of my writing analyzed by an expert he happened
to know. The expert said I was retarded. I was the smartest one in my class
and the teacher knew it. We had a good laugh at the expense of his expert
friend. I've got a PhD now BTW.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: symbolset on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 09:32 AM EST |
Ah, yes. But much of the commentary we find on blog comments these days is
written by a small cadre of marketing professionals. And it shows. If we can
discern this, certainly there is some software somewhere that has a good shot at
it.
So sometimes it can work, and sometimes not.
Also, it's nearly a
decade since the SCO debacle began. Quite a bit of progress has been made. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 03:43 PM EST |
The fingerprint also includes sites visited, activity times
and probably much more.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: squib on Thursday, January 10 2013 @ 02:46 PM EST |
Hiding behind a proxy is no protection against the cyborg annalist. In the UK
the author of 'Belle de Jour was discovered by a simple Googlewhack.
No
clicky's,.. 'course it a'nt that
interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/18/belle-de-jour-i
dentity-secret
The anti-terrorist squad use software of a type that is
available still on University websites to identify authors using pseudonyms.
However-you-change-your-writing-style, one's idiomatic sentence structure,
word pairing,
phrasing etc., remains preserved. The government may waist
a lot of money on silly things
at times yet this software has been proven
to work (most of the time).
Professional journalists can-and-will adjust their
writing style to suit the publication. For a cheap tabloid article they can keep
to a monosyllable vocabulary, for Forbe's they can let longer words creep in
and for the Readers Digest they can elusidise rhetoric to the point that the
reader believes that their verbiage is is so obviously correct that anyone with
different views is either a communist or wife-beater or both.
Amateurs may not
have the ability to identify anybody, based on writing style. But not
everyone are amateur scrip kiddies.
The best defences is to keep one's
linen-basket clean. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2013 @ 10:31 AM EST |
PJ, your vocabulary more closely matches usage by males, rather than
females. Had the analyst been competent, they would have returned a result of
either "inconclusive" or "female". (Looking only at
vocabulary is looking at the
wrong thing.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
