A purely anecdotal er... anecdote which I remember from the late 60's: a U
Hawaii student, perhaps trying to flatter his Prof, said Gosh, Professor
[M. E.] Bitterman, you must have published more articles than any living
psychologist. Bitterman replied immediately, No, Eysenck has two more
On 7 Jan 2004, David Likely wrote:
A purely anecdotal er... anecdote which I remember from the late 60's:
a U Hawaii student, perhaps trying to flatter his Prof, said Gosh,
Professor [M. E.] Bitterman, you must have published more articles
than any living psychologist. Bitterman replied
I was unable to replicate Stephens Google citation results for Newton,
Shakespeare, Darwin, Einstein, Marx and Freud:
Newton: 7.83 [million]
Shakespeare: 5.82
Darwin: 4.25
Einstein: 3.79
Marx: 3.21
Freud: 2.04
My results were:
Newton: 5.25
Shakespeare: 3.91
Darwin: 2.85
Einstein: 2.55
Marx:
This could become a full-time job. What's going on?
Stephen
I suspect the end of the semester, too much work to get done, and a need for
distraction. :) (I know that's not what you were really asking.)
You never get too mature (or too professorly) to have fun.
Damn, now I've used up one
/academics/sbs/rfroman.asp
-Original Message-
From: Allen Esterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:04 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Re: Teaser: May I have the envelope please?
I was unable to replicate Stephen's Google citation results
Confucius
Freud
Thomas Jefferson
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 3:12 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Teaser
According to a source I may reveal in the fullness of time, who are
the three most cited
Well, according to this way of doing things, Stephen, you rank at 5,520
(not millions, this is a raw number) which is not bad! The thing is,
there are many Stephen Blacks.
Google is a great search engine, but not very discriminative. Darwin,
for example, brings up many Team Darwin, or Darwin
Stephen Black wrote:
This may reflect the technological bias of the web. Can anyone
name another who might attract a greater number of hits? And I'd like
to hear whether anyone thinks it plausible that Eysenck could rank so
high in citedness.
Public Figures:
Oprah: 1.79 million
Paris Hilton:
I wrote:
Technological bias?
Al Gore: 1.87 million (ahead of Oprah? I'm impressed)
Bill Gates: 2.82 million
Steven Jobs: 24,300 (okay, Steve Jobs has .424 million)
Linux: 94.9 million
Windows: 99.7 million (but I'll bet that ALL the Linux references are
about software, while a couple
I yahooed instead of googling and I found that every name I typed in, including
the infamous Annette Taylor, came up the same: 221,000 hits.
HmmmI guess I like being on a par with the biggies :-)
annette
Quoting Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wrote:
Technological bias?
Al
Googling produced the answers, so I won't reveal them, since I cheated, but
here's an interesting article declaiming the list because the author's
prejudice precluded too many black intellectuals:
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/37_posner.html
Beth Benoit
University System of New Hampshire
-
On 24 Nov 2003, Beth Benoit wrote:
Googling produced the answers, so I won't reveal them
Actually, Richard Posner isn't the source of my claim about the three
most-cited individuals in history, and I wasn't aware of his work at
all, although it certainly seems relevant. However, the data he
12 matches
Mail list logo
