s skippy the bush kangaroo: motherf*ckin follow up to the c*cks*cking potty mouth post

skippy the bush kangaroo



Friday, March 02, 2007

motherf*ckin follow up to the c*cks*cking potty mouth post

disgusted in st. louis, having seen our motherf*cking post about the c*cks*cking language liberal blogs use vs. conservative blogs, used the good old t*ts sh*t p*ss scientific method himself.

he applied patrick ishmael's google process to the comments at little green footballs. the results were m*therf*ckin' astounding:

just for sh*ts and grins (and to increment my own use of one of the seven dirty words), let's just look at the actual usage at lgf by actually searching their comments. unfortunately, the lgf comment search doesn't work as well as google so here are the totals for each of the words from independent searches:

Example

now, let's compare the lgf results, 123208, to that of daily kos, 146000. that's pretty close, however dkos is more popular than lgf, but how much popular? let's use the rightosphere's own measure from the truth laid bear's ranking by traffic:

1) drew curtis' fark.com 1064063 visits/day
2) daily kos: state of the nation 499153 visits/day
3) daily kos :: diaries 469220 visits/day
...

13) lgf: cannot just be sitted idly by by 139603 visits/day


let's be generous and assume everyone visiting daily kos that posts comments is looking at diaries only. so, daily kos has 469220 visits a day to lgf's 139603. why, it appears that daily kos has nearly three and half times the number of visitors as lgf, but lgf has approximately the same number of usages of the seven dirty words.

obviously, the potty mouth rightwingnuts are over three times more likely to use profanity than the members of the leftosphere.
well, gosh!

Labels: ,

posted by skippy at 9:10 AM |

6 Comments:

One last clarification:

Whoever did that was double-counting. The Google search included words that showed up on the same page as one hit. So if all seven words showed up on one page, it would count as one, not seven. The method you've posted uses the latter form, not the former. Neither is better than the other, but if you're going to compare them, you have to compare them the same way.

Again, the survey leaves much to be desired (I didn't think people would be taking it this seriously). But if you're going to try to refute the method, you have to compare sites on the same terms -- pages where one or more show up, not instances where each word appears individually.
commented by Blogger Patrick Ishmael, 1:26 PM PST  
How amusing! "(I didn't think people would be taking it this seriously)" Yet, you attempt to make an "accurate" correction to this counting method while ignoring or disputing at least tens of thousands of instances, which your method didn't even record at just one site.

I didn't anticipate anyone taking my post seriously, either. Despite my having a background in advanced mathematics, statistics, and combinatorics, I thought the title of my original post, Lies, Damn Lies, and Potty Mouth Rightwingnuts would be recognized for the Benjamin Disraeli attributed quote. I even tagged my cross posted diary at Daily Kos first as snark. Anyone with a sense of humor would realize this was not being taken seriously with references to and quotes from Dana Carvey's SNL Church Lady. It was an exercise to point out the absurdity of the entire premise that their was any measurable difference in the use of profanity between "the Rightosphere and Leftosphere when it comes to "dirty" language." Apparently, Hinderaker took it quite seriously! ;^)

Hmm, next up:

But how different are the Rightosphere and Leftosphere when it comes to "humor" -- why are comics on the Left funny and comics on the Right panhandling like Dennis Miller?
Patrick sez you're double counting. So let's take the absolute minimum number you'd get by his approach that's consistent with Disgusted's approach, and say that all of the words other than "shit" appeared on the same page as the word "shit". That makes the minimum count 58948, the same as just the count for "shit". Now we need to scale it by our estimate of the site's "size", the visits/day number:

Kos: 146000/499153 = 0.29

LGF: 58948/139603 = 0.42

LGF commenters are (0.42-0.29)/0.29 = 45% more likely to use naughty language than Kos commenters -- at the very, very least.
commented by Blogger derPlau, 3:28 PM PST  
Nevermind, I was going to rant and use all 7 words in it. They don't deserve the dignity of a response. Fuck 'em.
commented by Blogger Bustednuckles, 4:50 PM PST  
patrick, i went back and used 7 different google searches, one for each of the 7 words, for skippy.

i still only got 101 total.

you still maintain skippy had over 400 dirty words in your survey.

will you please respond?
commented by Blogger skippy, 5:10 PM PST  
So... you added the terms together individually (making it possible to double count) and got 101, but you did a Google search for all the terms at once (where, if done properly, double counting was not possible) and got 136...

I don't have an advanced degree in mathematics, so Disgusted is going to have to explain how your overall number could be greater than the sum of your component parts. My guess it's a Google algorithm thing that can only, at least to some extent, be overcome by a standard search line. That's what I tried to do.

Disgusted's also going to have to do similar explaining for the "debunk" numbers at his site (ref. an update on the NB blog.) His saying my post is absurd belies the fact that he, with gusto, commented on it, and it especially doesn't excuse him (as a math guy no less!) for his mathematical errors in regard to it. I like a good joke, but using math, and bad math no less, is not especially conducive to a hearty chuckle. So my apologies, Ben: I missed the joke, and your math is all wrong. I hope you update your readers as to what, using your method, the Daily Kos profanity count is: 450,000.

I won't contest that the survey is flawed. I've said several times it's not perfect. And as far as why your skippy number is different than the one returned on Wednesday, I don't know -- it could be something little, see here: http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2007/03/show_me_your_wo.html#comment-62064622 -- though even if your number is the right one, it wouldn't affect the aggregate ratio I got in any meaningful way.

I do have to ask though: are you disputing that Left bloggers curse more? The extent to which they do? Or just the method? For the first two points, I would just direct you to the Fark entry... next to no one's shocked, which doesn't prove the study, but it certainly makes it plausible. For the last question, my ears are wide open. If you know of a better way of doing the test, I invite you to tell me about it.

I won't be coming back here to monitor your comments. Feel free to email me at the NB site.
commented by Blogger Patrick Ishmael, 10:24 PM PST  

Add a comment