Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well 4chan.org is simply the homepage, if you link to the actual boards (specifically /b/): https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl:1&q...
You, sir, have made my day.
There's hope for us yet!
Hacker News' Reading Level
21–30 of 60 posts
Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#22Well, it's official: 4chan is smarter than us. http://www.google.com/search?q=site:news.ycombinator.com&...
Well 4chan.org is simply the homepage, if you link to the actual boards (specifically /b/): https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl:1&q...
After dealing with my sick wife, I very much needed that laugh. Thank you.
Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#23Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#24Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#25I know it's comparing apples to oranges, but I contribute a lot on Stack Overflow so I took a look at the results.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
I was expecting a higher proportion in the "advanced" category.
For comparison:
Math Overflow: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
OnStartups: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
English Language & Usage: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
CS Theory: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
Seasoned Advice (Cooking): https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
Physics: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
It's no surprise really, but it seems like the more technical jargon used on a site, the higher the reading level Google assigns.
Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
An elevated reading level is not necessarily a sign of more thoughtful or insightful comments. It could just be contrived banality disguised as conceptual depth.
"contrived banality disguised as conceptual depth" Is it possible this phrase is an example of itself? :-)
I am sure it was indented as such.Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#27https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&... and https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbs=rl%3A1&...
^ is comparing Reddit with Wikipedia. Results are not shocking.
Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#28According to Google a HN thread about vomiting is "advanced".
Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#29Can someone briefly explain how google determines reading level? I'm assuming it's using something like the Flesch–Kincaid test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readabil... A brief search on wikipedia reveals a few readability tests, but they all seem to be based on sentence/syllable ratios, not content complexity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Readability_tests And in general they all ran…
I figured that, since Google must read every word of every page to spider it, they must thereby have, as a byproduct, the world's most accurate database of word usage frequencies. "Reading level" would then just be a measure of the average frequency of all the words on a page (thus making words learned in a first year ESL class simple, and technical jargon advanced—quite the same as the measure of difficulty used by…
I'd be lying if I said I don't doubt you are not incorrect ;)
What you are proposing is a statistically generated version of the Gunning Fog Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunning_fog_index) or the Flesch–Kincaid test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readabil...).
If I were Google, I'd try that, but I'd also try something like working out percentage deviation from a Markov chain generated from their crawl. A method like that would show that my first sentence is pretty unreadable, while an algorithm based on word complexity would see it as pretty simple.
Re: Hacker News' Reading Level
#30It would be equally interesting to only see the reading level of the articles, rather than the comments.
An elevated reading level is not necessarily a sign of more thoughtful or insightful comments. It could just be contrived banality disguised as conceptual depth.
This is a great comment. I've always thought 'reading level' as a bit bogus and looking at the wrong thing. When determining the quality of content I look at it from two ways. Does content convey the idea the writer intended and does the reader comprehend the idea the writer intended.
If I'm reading something I would prefer it be written as simply as possible. From a writers standpoint though this can be much harder than just explaining an idea in complex terms.
To paraphrase Pascal, "I apologize for the length of this letter, but I did not have time to make it shorter." I like to think length in this case meant complexity.