About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
So, there seems to be some unhappiness about the depth of this post. Perhaps this a lesson in overly agressive blog entry titles.
If you want to read some more in-depth discussions of language, I would suggest some of the previous posts.
In my defense, most of the readers seem to be coming in through reddit. Which means a fair number of people liked the article. And I still think it's interesting data.
Replying to the person who objected to using Google to get word frequency counts. Word frequency is usually calculated by summing up the occurrences of a word in some corpus of text. Ideally, the corpus is large and contains a wide variety of sources. Sounds like Google.
And, in fact, Google is being increasingly used by linguists, especially for the sort of informal analysis I used here.