Misplaced Pages

Talk:Content analysis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:37, 4 December 2007 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,093 edits Stustu12's external links← Previous edit Revision as of 23:33, 5 December 2007 edit undoHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,093 editsm →External link cleanupNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:
==Stustu12's external links== ==Stustu12's external links==
Because this is first an issue of ] a number of links where the original editor has a clear ], it might be best to try to centralize the discussions at ] and ] --] 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Because this is first an issue of ] a number of links where the original editor has a clear ], it might be best to try to centralize the discussions at ] and ] --] 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

==External link cleanup==
The external links need cleanup per ], ], and ]. If editors feel a list of tools would be useful, it would need to meet ] and especially have a inclusion criteria so the list can be managed from growing uncontrollably. The normal inclusion criteria is for the list to only include items that already have their own[REDACTED] articles. Because none of these do, they should probably all be removed. It would be nice to find and include a link that actually lists such tools though. --] (]) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:33, 5 December 2007

WikiProject iconSociology Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

I followed your link to Zipf's Law on the Content Analysis page and the law doesn't say anything about the importance of words being proportional to their frequency as the article suggests (which would have been a preposterous claim given that the most frequent words are preposiitons and such).

Should this be integrated with text analysis or text mining or natural language processing? I see a lot of redundant information here. How is this any different other than a different wording? Josh Froelich 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually quite dismayed to see my search for textual analysis shortcut straight to the content analysis page. It is not in the least a simple byword: content analysis describes a quantitative, empirical approach to texts that operates as a kind of foil to the individualised, personal reasonings required of textual analysis. The two are obviously deeply linked (and most usually used in conjunction with one another during analysis), but this does not in itself constitute justification for a merging. - Tim (not registered, just concerned) 27/3/07

Urgent Simplification Suggested

Can anyone who understands the area make this article a little simpler? I am from a science background (not humanities) and find the language very difficult to understand. 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I would agree that the text needs to be simplified. I would also suggest that this can be a very powerful tool. It mentions that Public relations uses the same tools to evaluate results of campaigns. The article is one dimensional in that it does not discuss early uses of the media in the 20th century. It does not discuss the converse if you can track what is being said you also can track what isn't said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsv123456 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Stustu12's external links

Because this is first an issue of spamming a number of links where the original editor has a clear WP:COI, it might be best to try to centralize the discussions at User talk:Piotrus#Talk:Qualitative research#Stustu12's external links and Talk:Qualitative research#Stustu12's external links --Ronz 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

External link cleanup

The external links need cleanup per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. If editors feel a list of tools would be useful, it would need to meet WP:LIST and especially have a inclusion criteria so the list can be managed from growing uncontrollably. The normal inclusion criteria is for the list to only include items that already have their own[REDACTED] articles. Because none of these do, they should probably all be removed. It would be nice to find and include a link that actually lists such tools though. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Content analysis: Difference between revisions Add topic