1996-02-17 - Re: Computer unmasks Anonymous writer…

Header Data

From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: sasha1@netcom.com
Message Hash: eb89357030ce2616ba8a6ef4cd0c1877d37fba2676c8e6334401a24b0d2b76ec
Message ID: <01I1AH3BILHOA0V3BM@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-17 01:46:50 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 09:46:50 +0800

Raw message

From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 09:46:50 +0800
To: sasha1@netcom.com
Subject: Re:  Computer unmasks Anonymous writer...
Message-ID: <01I1AH3BILHOA0V3BM@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: sasha1@netcom.com (Alexander Chislenko)

>  I ran my essays through Word grammar checker a while ago,
>and was surprised how stable the grammar statistics were.
>Complexity of the text (grade level) was the same to the decimal point,
>average length of sentences was consistent, etc.
>People also use the same styles of smileys or *highlights*, make
>consistent spelling errors, have their habits of indentation, etc.

	I'd like suggestions from people on what style/grammar checker is best
for reducing this kind of interpersonal variablity (and increasing the
intrapersonal variety by only using it sometimes). I use Grammatik 5 on some
posts, and it does seem to help.

>My suggestion at the time was to have randomizing output filter that
>would substitute synonyms, change spelling, modify paragraph formatting,
>etc.  - Style anonymizer, I'd call it.  Also, if small random changes are

	At least for the synonyms, I'd hope that a good grammar checker was
seeing if you weren't using a very large vocabulary. That's one problem I have
with Grammatik 5, in that it doesn't do this very well.
	-Allen





Thread