10
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive (view source)
Revision as of 01:02, February 29, 2008
, 01:02, February 29, 2008Who wants to take a Google hit analysis test?
: Put it in quotes, "second generation atheist": only 73 google hits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: Put it in quotes, "second generation atheist": only 73 google hits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
Mr.Schlafly, I'd like to assess the mathematical accuracy of your thesis. Of the following list of reasons for a low Google search 'hit' number, which do you accept <b>could</b> be possible causes? Please consider that any given term may be subject to these effects - you might even imagine an imaginary search phrase - "banana hammock bicycle", or something, as the actual term we're considering is irrelevant to analysing this data
#The searched-for phenomenon genuinely has a lower occurrence in the World (this is your thesis);
#The term is not widely known;
#The term is not spelled in precisely the same manner;
#The term is one of many terms used to describe the same phenomenon, and thus the result is a subset within the set of all data;
#The term is simply not a relevant way to search for a topic;
#The term simply happens to not be used on the internet, though it may be used in conversation;
#The term is only used in languages other than the search language
I'd love to see which items in the list above you think could cause a low result? [[User:OldMan|OldMan]] 20:02, 28 February 2008 (EST)
== "The Minister's Son" ==
== "The Minister's Son" ==