.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, November 24, 2008

Analyse that

Charlotte Gore has started something with her discovery of this tool that allegedly analyses on how male or female a blogger's writing style is.

According to Charlotte it is about 'how often you use the word, "I" because, apparently, women will avoid this word and prefer to refer to others, or omit the use of "I" altogether. Also women are, apparently, more likely to add qualifiers - such as, "I feel" or "I believe" or "I think" and, "don't you think?" and "isn't it?" - or, I suppose, taking the first into account they'll say, "do you feel?" or "do you believe?".'

Apparently, Gender Analyzer says that this blog is 57% certain to be written by a man, however it is quite gender neutral. However, the site believes that Miss Wagstaff is 87% certain to have been written by a man. Valleys Mam is allegedly 76% male whilst the blog of Bethan Jenkins AM is 55% likely to be written by a man though that is also fairly gender neutral.

You win some, you lose some.
Apparently I am 72% of a man! Now that will be a scary thought to a few people in my house!

There's a vote on that site asking if the tool was correct or incorrect in each situation - so far it's getting 53% right!
Apparently there's a 75% chance that our blog was written by a woman...we're actually 3 men...so that'll come as a surprise to a few people in our houses! I'm doubting its effectiveness!

I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Having said that I am sure Miss Wagstaff is a man and a Tory staffer at that!
Having another busy day at the office, I see Peter?

You really need to get yourself a proper job.

This would serve two purposes:

a) it would instantly relieve your obvious boredom with your current employ, and

b) people in South West Wales would get someone who really cared about their lot during the current economic difficulties instead of someone who is patently obsessed with blogging.

Do you have no shame about taking tax-payers money to fund your ridiculous hobby?

Of course not. That's why you won't permit this comment to be posted.

The last thing you want is someone publicly criticising you for wasting their hard earned taxes!
I'm 100% sure that I'm either male or female, and 33% certain that one of the bloggers on 'Miss Wagstaff Presents' is a man.

I'm 99% sure that anonymous comments are made by men, and 90% certain that those that think I'm a Tory staffer are nationalists.

I'm 100% sure that I'm currently taking a blogging break, and 50% sure that I will return.

I'm 100% sure that this is a game of percentages.
Note the time of the post Felicity, I did it whilst grabbing a quick lunch between meetings. I have in fact been involved in meetings solidly all day and have been dealing with e-mails and casework in between. I am now off to another meeting.
"...another busy day in the office"

Suggest you come and see how much time is spent in Bridgend by the ruling party on Council Business.
My blog's 90% male, which is disturbingly reassuring.
93% male, and I'm male, like Chanticleer, I'm worryingly reassured.
Now I have to find the 7% female parts and work out what was going on those days, this could tell me alot about gender linguistics in Welsh sustainable development.
Peter, Does it say whether the blatant refusal of Bethan Jenkins to refuse to allow through moderation anything less praiseworthy than 'The sun shines out of Bethan's derriere' is a male or a female trait ??
In my day at school which was a few years ago, we had to write without using the letter "I" in anything which was being written, boy that can be very difficult. Then we were allowed to write using I but only twice in any story.

The idea was to stop people from using it , but lets be honest so long as we understand whats being said/written who the hell cares.
Hairy-chested aberavonneathlibdems.blogspot.com thrusts itself ahead of peterblack at 85%.

This is interesting, considering that several people - not all male - can contribute to it.
i'm suprised you haven't put up my comment about Miss Wagstaff Peter. I think its a fair point. i am especially suprised considering he/she was so keen to allow comments calling for your resignation over your views on John McCains disability
I didnt put it up because it made exactly the same point as the third comment in this thread and it was getting boring. As both comments were anonymous I had to assume that you were the same person. If you adopt a persona then that will help me overcome that particular issue.
Anon 5:22 pm

Comment moderation is not in place on my blog and all comments are allowed until a review is taken, which is on a regular basis.

Senedd Whip happened to be monitoring the blog at the time of those comments and I agree with SW when he/she says "I hardly think that Peter meant those words as they've been taken. If you have issue with him then why not take it up with him?"

As for myself, I'm not even sure if Peter made the original comment as I didn't read it, and if he did, I'm sure that it wasn't meant in the way it was reported. We all make mistakes.

Senedd Whip removed a number of comments that were unfair to Peter. He/she assures me that the other 'anti-Peter comments' on the post were left untouched as the content is seen as ridiculous, considering the standing of Peter in Welsh politics.

You'll be hard pressed to find a person that believes Peter meant those words, unless they are out to cause mischief.

I'd put a bet on them originating from opposition parties or even an opposing camp within the lib dems, and I wouldn't be suprised if Anon 5:22 is any one of the above. Any opportunity to raise the topic again.
Peter I am a different person and the point i was making was not to do with Miss Wagstaffs chosen political alliances but the fact that she edits comments to remove anything that does not agree with her posts. The anti-peter black comments were allowed on and some vicious ones about other bloggers but if you even put forward a legitimate and fact based counter argument to the view she has taken it will be taken down and god forbid you dont praise the tories or bash the labour party!
Well if you adopted a web identity I would be able to tell the difference wouldn't I?
Perhaps I will Peter. the reason I dont is simply as I dont regularly contribute but do enjoy reading all the blogs and occassionally comment.

Another point to miss Wagstaff why were the comments I put up defending peter on that thread taken down yet those attacking him were left up? I am not a supporter of any party and wouldn't say i necessarily identify with peter but certainly I did not feel the sort of comments you were allowing on that thread were in anyway a reflection of his politics and should have been moderated if you are so quick to moderate other more resonable arguments which actually have anything to do with the topic at hand.
"Another point to miss Wagstaff why were the comments I put up defending peter on that thread taken down yet those attacking him were left up?"

Looks like we only have your word for this as you remain anonymous. Ahh, such is the life of an anonymous opportunist.

I've reviewed the comments that I removed and yours in defence of Peter wasn't among them. I suggest you add them for the first time to Miss Wagstaff's blog.

Senedd Whip
Could somebody point me to the thread that is being talked about? Thanks
Its here Peter.


The post is not about you and I am not suggesting that miss Wagstaff would do so only that maybe her comment moderation policy should be looked at. if you make a comment on topic and legitimate to the debate on any issue then they will be taken down unless you agree with her. Yet the comments about you which were clearly malicious and off topic were allowed to stay posted.
Thanks. I had not seen those comments though I had seen the same individual's letter to the South Wales Echo and Western Mail. The fact is that I did unreserevedly apologise for those remarks as a footnote at http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-what-did-i-miss.html, which is where they were made.

Although I knew McCain had been a prisoner of war for some reason I did not make the connection between that and his hand movements. I was not aware of the extent or nature of his injuries. If I had been I would not have said what I did.

The point I was trying to make was that he did not seem at ease with crowds in the way that Obama did. That manifested itself in the his method of speaking more than anything else.
I am sure that no one thinks you would have made the comment deliberately Peter. Maybe Miss Wagstaff (no doubt knowing that) could have taken the comments down as she does with other comments far less controversial that simply disagree with her.


There is something ironic about someone who posts under the false name Sennedd Whip attacking me for being anon!
Boo hoo hoo. Miss Wagstaff doesn't allow my nationalistic scribblings on her blog.

Just taken a look at the comments referring to Peter and found them laughable. I can understand why they were left there. Pretty obvious as a joke towards the commentator rather than at Peter.

Get a life.
So what you’re essentially saying is that comments that are serious about a political point are taken down but any slurs on politicians (not Tory) are allowed to stay up as a "joke!”

I think that basically sums up my argument about Miss Wagstaffs policy!

Also I am not a political supporter of any party, former Labour voter now disillusioned so it’s nothing to do with nationalism and more to do with having a differing view to Miss Wagstaff.
'comments that are serious about a political point'

You're pushing it a bit aren't you? All you've taked about on this blog is Peter's mistake and Miss Wagstaff not playing ball with you.

I've just tried the wagstaff blog on that site and it tells me that it's 76% female. You bloggers change sex from week to week. No wonder we're all confused as to who's writing them.
Miss wagstaff not playing ball with anyone making a political point my friend. I like his/her blog but wish that the comment moderation wasn't designed to deleate anyone that doesn't agree with him/her. I would have thought it goes against the whole point of a debate!

Also forgive me for taking exception to the fact his/her blog was happy to leave anti peter comments up when they take other more legitimate comments down, and not just from me.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?