Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Books Makes a Word Cloud of Human History

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the trends-for-books dept.

Books 127

An anonymous reader writes "From Ed Yong at the Not Exactly Rocket Science blog: 'Just as petrified fossils tell us about the evolution of life on earth, the words written in books narrate the history of humanity. The words tell a story, not just through the sentences they form, but in how often they occur. Uncovering those tales isn't easy — you'd need to convert books into a digital format so that their text can be analyzed and compared. And you'd need to do that for millions of books. Fortunately, that's exactly what Google have been doing since 2004.' Yong goes on to explain that the astounding record of human culture found in Google Books offers new research paths to social scientists, linguists, and humanities scholars. Some of the early findings (abstract), based on an analysis of 5 million books containing 500 billion words: English is still adding words at a breathtaking pace; grammar is evolving and often becoming more regular; we're forgetting our history more quickly; and celebrities are younger than they used to be. You can also play with the Google Books search tool yourself. For example, here's a neat comparison of how often the words Britannica and Wikipedia have appeared."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OCR errors (5, Interesting)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591090)

AFAIK, Google Books doesn't do the sort of methodical OCR clean-up that Project Gutenberg does, so a lot of Google's digitized books have a a fair number of errors. It'd be funny to see what kind of blips this might creates in our extracted cultural history!

Re:OCR errors (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591242)

Doesn't google books use reCaptcha? It's not perfect, but I'm sure it fixes a very significant portion of OCR errors

Re:OCR errors (2)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591252)

From Google's "about" page [googlelabs.com] for their Books Ngram Viewer lab: "Why does the word 'Internet" occur before 1950?"

Re:OCR errors (2)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591338)

A simpson quote where lenny as a kid talks about the netting in his shorts, the internet, and later says "I think I just logged onto the internet" comes to mind...

Re:OCR errors (1)

mjperson (160131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591844)

One of the sample plots in the article is a plot comparing the frequencies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. If you look at the plot, you'll notice that Lincoln has a nice uptick in name usage about 10 years before he was born.

Re:OCR errors (2)

meloneg (101248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592360)

If you follow links on that ngram (and play with the date ranges a bit), you find this query [google.com] that seems to be showing a lot of those references to Abe were in the meta-data.
A little more digging finds this little gem [google.com] . Which appears to just be mis-dated. I suspect it was written in 1890 from looking very carefully at the copyright page.
It also very possible that some of those references are to others people with the same name. Like this one [google.com] and this one [google.com] .

Re:OCR errors (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592420)

I wonder if it had to do with President Lincoln's grandfather? He had the same name and was a captain in the revolution.

Re:OCR errors (1)

meloneg (101248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592392)

Take a look at the books which get OCR'ed with "email". As near as I can tell, all of them before a certain point are supposed to be "small". Methinks Google should think about adding a bit of data-sensitivity to their OCR.

Re:OCR errors (3, Funny)

raddan (519638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593068)

Maybe so, maybe so. All is know is that 1720 was a really bad year [googlelabs.com] .

Case sensitive? (4, Informative)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591092)

Interesting that it is case sensitive. Searching for "britannica,wikipedia" in lowercase, produces, for today, close to zero for brittanica, and 0.00005% for wikipedia, which is not far off the result for Wikipedia (with capital).

Putting these together, the case-insensitive comparison of brittanica and wikipedia has wikipedia already well ahead of brittanica, at around 0.00010% for britannica, vs 0.00013% for wikipedia.

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591658)

I don't know about the two encyclopediae, but so far my favorite is republic vs democracy [googlelabs.com] .

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

geegel (1587009) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592206)

You should try republic vs tyranny [googlelabs.com] . Some odd correlation there.

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592334)

I read that as republic vs. tranny. The funny thing is, I probably wouldn't have clicked if I read it correctly.

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593570)

This again exposes a problem of case sensitivity. Try Republic vs tyranny (capital R).

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592972)

War [googlelabs.com] is pretty straightforward...

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593042)

Also, everything is a crisis [googlelabs.com] nowadays!

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593340)

Ok, I must not know something about the phrase war pigs [googlelabs.com]

Re:Case sensitive? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593588)

If you click on the links at the bottom, some of them show multi-word combos like:
"Before the war, pig-iron"
"On board vessels of war pig-iron"

Re:Case sensitive? (2)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593126)

We might also note that big peak in the incidence of "Britannica" in the early 1800s. But back then, it was still expected that educated people (at least in Europe) would study Latin, and "Britannica" is merely a Latin adjectival form of "Britannia", or "Britain", and the British Empire was rather active around the world at that time. So most of the uses of "Britannica" around then probably had nothing to do with the encyclopedia.

I'd guess that you'd also find a fair number of occurrences of "Britannica" before 1768, the year that the encyclopedia was first published. But most of those would probably be lower case.

"Britannica" in the 1500s: more than just a book (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593516)

The word "Britannica" doesn't just refer to Encyclopaedia Britannica. It means 'of Britain' (latin scholars can help me with the exact meaning but this is its general sense). So you'll get hits from before when the encyclopaedia existed, back to at least 1500 according to the search tool. And some hits from after the books started won't refer to them. It's a poor choice of comparison for a search.

Academic conceit (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591112)

Oh yeah, the only thing that ever matters is when a self-selected sample of writers puts words on paper. Nothing else matters. What is the percentage of humans who have lived? And what percentage of those humans got book deals and successfully negotiated the minefield to get not only published, but indexed by a 15-year-old company? Surely this is the sum of all human knowledge! How could it be otherwise? Oh, no, my anti-intellectualism is showing! How dare I question my betters?

Re:Academic conceit (3, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591186)

Tell me, how are you proposing to measure the words and thoughts of those who did not take the time to put them down in a form that later generations could refer to?

Because if you have a time machine, I've got some business plans that could make us both filthy rich...

Re:Academic conceit (2)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591398)

Oh yeah, the only thing that ever matters is when a self-selected sample of writers puts words on paper. Nothing else matters.

I don't know that anyone besides yourself actually made that claim...

What is the percentage of humans who have lived? And what percentage of those humans got book deals

If we're talking about human history here, not many published authors actually had to get book deals. Those are a fairly recent occurrence.

and successfully negotiated the minefield to get not only published, but indexed by a 15-year-old company?

Google is indexing everything they can get their hands on. It isn't like you have to pay an entrance fee or anything.

Surely this is the sum of all human knowledge! How could it be otherwise? Oh, no, my anti-intellectualism is showing! How dare I question my betters?

The fact of the matter is that the important stuff is usually what gets written down.

Genealogies, religious texts, laws, business records, etc.

And even if it's fiction, it's generally a good indicator of what people care to read about. Lots of sex and scandal and whatnot.

Regardless of your opinion on the value of what gets written down... It isn't like we have a whole lot else to go by. We can't very well go back 1,000 years and just ask somebody what they think. We have to work with the records we have - be it written text, or the remains of a city, or statues, or whatever.

Re:Academic conceit (2)

AJWM (19027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591504)

History isn't what really happened, it's what got written down. Everything else is evanescent (well, except for what archaeologists can dig up and reconstruct, which isn't much and not necessarily accurate -- and it only counts if they write it down). Mind, I'd be more impressed if Google were also tracking the content of every hieroglyph and cuneiform tablet ever found.

It will ever be thus, unless someone invents a time machine (or at least a time viewer).

Re:Academic conceit (1)

meloneg (101248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592442)

Mind, I'd be more impressed if Google were also tracking the content of every hieroglyph and cuneiform tablet ever found.

It will ever be thus, unless someone invents a time machine (or at least a time viewer).

I suspect they plan to...

Re:Academic conceit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592530)

History isn't what really happened, it's what got written down.

"The writing of history is largely a process of diversion. Most historical accounts distract attention from their secret influences behind great events. The few histories that escape this restrictive process vanish into obscurity through obvious processes. Destruction of as many copies as possible, burying the too revealing accounts in ridicule, ignoring them in the centers of education, insuring that they are not quoted elsewhere" - Frank Herbert

Slashdot circa 1885 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34591114)

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=slashdot&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 [googlelabs.com]

Sometime around 1885, the very first Anonymouse Cowarde briefly tried writing about Slashdot, but apparently died off before his comments could be modded up.

Re:Slashdot circa 1885 (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591386)

That is very, very odd. It appears to be in 1899:

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=slashdot&year_start=1800&year_end=1960&corpus=0&smoothing=0 [googlelabs.com]

but a further search turns up zero results. If it were a OCR-o, it should at least show up.

There is another hit, labeled 1963:

http://books.google.com/books?id=x-O2AAAAIAAJ&q=%22slashdot%22&dq=%22slashdot%22&hl=en&ei=9bwLTaTADoet8Abf1qT7DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA [google.com]

but it's a badly mis-dated issue of The Economist. Not sure why it's the only one.

Re:Slashdot circa 1885 (1)

meloneg (101248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592498)

I was thinking that was the date of first publication for The Economist.

Re:Slashdot circa 1885 (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592782)

The Economist dates to 1843.

There may have been some format change that makes 1963 special, or it may be that their records start there. But I doubt that's the only mention of Slashdot on the Economist, so I suspect it's just that one issue that's misdated.

(A search at The Economist turns up two hits, both from 1999, but from different issues. I'm surprised that there isn't something more recent than that, and I suspect their search is flaky. Neither one is the article that the Google search turned up, which must be after 1999 since it mentions Google pacing ads on other sites.)

Re:Slashdot circa 1885 (1)

jfmiller (119037) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593306)

There are some number of modern works that are for some reason cataloged at the turn of the last century. Try Internet for similar results.

So it's just like Google search then? (1)

donutello (88309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593640)

Search for Slashdotte: 415 results. Go to page 9 of the results: Now there's only 89 results.

Probably only one answer (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591156)

So a word cloud of human history probably has WAR in in the center at 900 point font.

Re:Probably only one answer (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591692)

I was actually expecting "the," but it turns out they got "one." I guess they filtered out the articles.

Smoothing creates bias (2)

AAWood (918613) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591166)

Note that in the linked Brittanica / Wikipedia chart, Britannica appears higher due to smoothing being set as it is. Set it to a lower value, which gives a less pretty, more accurate chart, and Wikipedia is much higher by the present day.

Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

Japong (793982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591172)

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=fuck&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 [googlelabs.com]

Up until the 1820s, Fuck was apparently very much in vogue. Not until 1960s was this great word brought back into the lexicon of the common man.

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591278)

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=fuck&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 [googlelabs.com]

Up until the 1820s, Fuck was apparently very much in vogue. Not until 1960s was this great word brought back into the lexicon of the common man.

Click on the time period from 1800 in the lower left and you'll see search results with some of the context. Oftentimes it seems to unfortunately be an OCR error (lambs and calves fucking milk). Maybe there was a font in use at the time with an f that resemble(d/s) an s...

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34591456)

Specifically, it's because it's a misread of "such" or "suck".

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591568)

Maybe there was a font in use at the time with an f that resemble(d/s) an s...

Exactly. Well, almost. Not so much a font, but a convention where an initial 's' (or all but the final 's') used a character that looked something like an 'f' and a little like an integral sign (or 'fign'). A lot of old documents use that. I have a 200-year old chemistry text (handed down from a great^n grandfather) which proclaims itself "A Complete Courfe in Chymiftry", except that the 'f' isn't quite.

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591310)

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=fuck&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0

Here, take a broader look.

People may complain about filthy language these days, but daaaaaamn! Our founding fathers must have had -filthy- mouths, and I'd -really- like to know what that spike in the late 1500s was about.

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591718)

That's rather easy, click on the link at the bottom for 1500-1665 [google.com] . A lot of OCR errors, it looks like.

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592072)

For fuck's sake, the letter "f" in this case is actually the letter "s". (I am not a linguist but it may be related to German.)

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

balbus000 (1793324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593600)

Yep, check out this [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34591330)

Also it looks as if we're getting smarter. Love is ahead of money recently. Also, they tend to be reversely proportional to each other, if you look at it.

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

jestill (656510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591438)

"But if your cock has received any hurt in his eye, then take a leaf or two of right ground-ivy, that is, fuch as is found in little tufts at the bottom of hedges; chew this in your mouth very well, and fuck out the juice, and fquirt it into his eye two or three times" The Sportsman's Dictionary by Henry James Pye It is the use of f for s ... which leads to some pretty funny text http://books.google.com/books?id=xpQXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA82&dq=%22fuck%22&hl=en&ei=i70LTfDPAoeglAfGtLjUDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22fuck%22&f=false [google.com] --

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591850)

It's actually a medial s character, rather than an f. At some point the medial s was gotten rid of in favor of the final s.

Email's Great Comeback too! (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591442)

Not until 1960s was this great word brought back into the lexicon of the common man.

Oddly enough, email was a pretty popular word from up until the 1960's, peaking in popularity in the 1860's [googlelabs.com] , but has made a comeback since the mid 1990's!

Re:Email's Great Comeback too! (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591560)

That I can explain with emaille - french-, that in Dutch and I believe in German also is written as email.

Re:Email's Great Comeback too! (1)

meloneg (101248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592564)

Look at the books in question though. Mostly just a mis-OCR of "small".

Re:Fuck's Great Comeback (3, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591450)

Most of the actual hits there appear to be OCR-os for the word "suck" and "such", often due to the use of medial "s" that resembles an "f". The word "such" appeared on a page which was badly speckled.

Given that the word "suck" was often used in the expression "to give suck", many of those pages are quite hilarious ("she would not suffer the strange lamb to fuck"). I didn't see any actual "fucks" in the first few pages of hits.

I know that the word was known. Shakespeare made a sly reference to it in Merry Wives of Windsor. But I suspect it wasn't often set down on paper, at least not in the kinds of books that got preserved.

wasting time (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591214)

as if I was not already wasting enough time on /.

now I spent almost an hour fooling around with this today

Naughty Words (1)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591220)

I can't believe I'm almost 30 years old and the first thing I did was graph sex and f*ck. I guess some things never change...

Inverse correlations (1)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591508)

This should be a great way to test euphemism treadmills [wikipedia.org] for instance, try 'lunatic asylum' and 'psychiatric hospital'. Lunatic asylum makes a comeback in the early 2000's, i'm guessing because of history books.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics (1)

plankrwf (929870) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591260)

Hmmm... So Britannica still on top?

But this link (is with smoothing=0) gives a different result:

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Britannica%2CWikipedia&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0 [googlelabs.com]

Not that I know whether smoothing=0 is better or worse then smoothing=3

Kind regards,

Roel

A bit sparse of an article (4, Interesting)

alcourt (198386) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591282)

I wish they had gone in the article into more depth about grammar changes, rather than just word forms. For example, sentence ordering, comma usage, and some various other grammar items would be more intriguing. I found the burnt/burned the most interesting comparison because it showed an example of two competing versions of a word.

Interesting idea, but as was stated in the article, there are definite limits to what this technique can study, and many are unconvinced of its value for more than highly limited problems.

War&Peace (1)

dorre (1731288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591316)

Re:War&Peace (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591846)

Perhaps a narrower [googlelabs.com] focus? [googlelabs.com]

This is better than discovering new oil reserves (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591344)

The richest data mine in the whole world... and probably bottomless..

I call BS (1)

daboochmeister (914039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591426)

I mean, how good can they be if they don't even get THIS [googlelabs.com] right?!

On the other hand, they seem to have pegged this one [googlelabs.com] !

Re:I call BS (1)

fuo (941897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592340)

I agree. Something is obviously wrong with it because the results for "ninja,pirate" and "vi,emacs" cannot possibly be correct.

Re:I call BS (1)

nickersonm (1646933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593166)

Perhaps if you used the correct [googlelabs.com] bigrams [googlelabs.com] instead of uncommon contractions of them.

From TFA (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591488)

Rather than expose the full texts to the public (and themselves to copyright infringement)

      But wait, I thought you were breaking the law just by scanning the books and creating unauthorized copies. Or is there a different law for corporations like Google?

Re:From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34591774)

There's something you probably never heard about called negotiating a copyright agreement.

Re:From TFA (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591858)

it doesn't matter, it's retarded either way

we can't actually READ these texts... drum roll please... that in most cases no one can get their hands on anyways, they are so obscure. because someone might lose money, theoretically, THAT THEY ALREADY AREN'T MAKING. however, if these texts were made freely available, there would be renewed interest in some of these obscure works and someone would definitely make ancillary revenues off of them

google is providing free exposure for rights holders and grandchildren of authors (ON WHAT MORAL BASIS DO GRANDCHILDREN DESERVE ANYTHING IN THIS RETARDED COPYRIGHT SYSTEM) of obscure works, which will certainly result in new revenues. but no! we have to keep these musty volumes locked up because it is better to earn no money than have money "stolen" from you that doesn't exist, stolen as in FREE ADVERTISING

it's greed so incredibly stupid, it hurts its own bottom line

intellectual property law has to die. i know it is hard to get done, but intellectually property law is really a sick fucking joke

Google VS Yahoo (1)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591822)

Yahoo had an early lead and blew it, but has made a comeback!
Google Vs Yahoo [googlelabs.com]

"the" vs "of" is also exciting......I will be following this contest for the rest of my life.
The vs Of [googlelabs.com]

Is another worth more common than "the"?

tl;dr (2)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591838)

tl;dr

Re:tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592936)

Fuck off.

The Cola Wars (1)

Strange Quark Star (1157447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591894)

Re:The Cola Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592074)

Nope:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Pepsi%2CCoke&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0
Coke ftw

Re:The Cola Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592226)

nope its not.
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Pepsi Cola,Coca Cola&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0

Where's Buffy! (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34591972)

Oh oh, according to this graph [googlelabs.com] , we're being overrun by vampires, and the slayers are dropping like flies :(

Leadership (1)

charlesj68 (1170655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592002)

References to forms of national leadership are interesting. A nice peak for the reign of the Virgin Queen, the appearance and growth of President in line with the upstart of those bloody colonies in North America, President finally tops King just about the time of the Great War, but King reasserts until the Second World War finally pushes President on top. Interestingly enough, King comes back and surpasses President just about the turn of the Millennium. http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=King,President,Queen&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 [googlelabs.com]

This truly looks phenomenal (1)

spads (1095039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592144)

My impression is that a search for "man" would not match "woman". (Ie. word boundaries are assumed.) True?

Easter Egg (1)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592170)

Apparently someone at google labs is a fan of the whole "pirates prevent global warming" joke: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=pirates%2Cninjas&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 [googlelabs.com]

Ye Olde Cuss Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592246)

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=fuck,ass&year_start=1600&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=10

What happened in the 1700s!

New York Word Exchange (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592266)

Seeing the graphs of word popularity over time reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live skit [jt.org] with Phil Hartman giving word investing tips.

Rickrolled easter egg (4, Funny)

daboochmeister (914039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592322)

Re:Rickrolled easter egg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592682)

Like this joke.. they are coming!!!!

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=end+times&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0

Wow, the reality distortion field... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592356)

...really seems to permeate time:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=iphone&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592594)

i guess people have been lulzing for quite some time

Party Graphology (1)

thethibs (882667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592608)

It's said that liberals have issues and conservatives have principles. Plug "issue,principle" into it and see a really good picture of Western political change.

man vs. God (1)

aDSF762 (865834) | more than 3 years ago | (#34592828)

And the winner... ...man... also throw woman in there and look to simplified Chinese.

Search for wikileaks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34592866)

suddenly you'll see that no one has ever written about wikileaks! Check it out here [googlelabs.com]

Google Books vs. real corpora (4, Informative)

CorpusProf (1961030) | more than 3 years ago | (#34593228)

http://corpus.byu.edu/coha [byu.edu]
Corpus of Historical American English.

-- 400 million words, 1810s-2000s.
-- Allows for many types of searches that Google Books can't:
* accurate frequency of words and phrases by decade and year
* changes in word forms (via wildcard searches)
* grammatical changes (because corpus is "tagged" for part of speech)
* changes in meaning (via collocates; "nearby words")
* show all words that are more common in one set of decades than others
* integrate synonyms and customized word lists into queries
* etc etc etc
-- Funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), 2009-2011.

Take a look at the "Compare to Google/Archives" link off the first page.

Like a thermometer in the bathtub scenario... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593496)

I can see the word BFD ticking up right about now.

Instances of "God" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34593506)

Data goes back to 1500 BCE. Really reminds me how important the 'open source' concept is (literacy and printing methods in this case...)

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=God

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?