Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (14314)	12/3/2004 3:28:44 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 20773

I just did another analysis with Qaddafi's name and the words "good" and "bad". Using variants of the transliterated name (Kadafi, Kaddafi, Qadafi etc), I got some interesting results. When it is a the mainstream spelling, Google looks like AV, but when it comes to atypical spellings they start to have a weird ratio. I'm still pondering what this means, if anything. 'Night.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (14314)	12/3/2004 6:20:52 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

My interpretation is that a smaller (biased) sample of sources is the reason, From your explanation it would seem that the interpretation should be that there are (at least) two sources for information and that the spelling follows that of the primary sources. You imply that the '+h' spelling comes from the predominate primary source, the army, but there is no info on where the '-h' spelling originates. It's almost axiomatic that different sources would have different viewpoints but that in itself is not a personal bias (only a bias in information availability).