Comments for Misdirection... at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 45 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sat, 18 May 2013 07:47:51 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6509 The reason you get ads for those books is pretty clear. Randi's book concerns the occult, the supernatural, etc. It concerns the other side, yes, but it does concern them. So, through contextual advertisement, you are going to get ads for books about the supernatural. If you don't like that they unfortunately have the majority of them written About their merits, instead of their flaws, go write more books. In the meantime, what you are saying essentially balks at free speech, in that both sides are presented. You have the right to delete emails, and you have been told by Amazon how to avoid recieving ads based on your purchases, and have chosen not to take those avenues. By doing so, you forfeit your right to complain about this situation. So basically, quit whining. You got a contextual ad in your email box, oddly one that had a Higher chance of appealing to you than most you may normally recieve, and you're complaining about it. You subscribed to those emails when you made that order and checked the box to subscribe. Don't turn this into more than it is, because frankly, this is a simple incident of overreaction. Focus on things that are way more important, and quit jumping at shadows. - T. Noel Thu, 28 May 2009 13:23:46 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6464 ...after all, if he's going to attempt correspondence with a software application and then report it as a real conversation, then maybe his skeptical radar is a little off kilter. ;D - jcwept Tue, 26 May 2009 22:42:57 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6405 Yes, those recomendations are [i]generated[/i] not given. I would assume the email was a form of some kind as well. Just sit back and enjoy the irony of the crappy recomendations for you. It's a riot! - Raindoggy Mon, 25 May 2009 05:35:36 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6398 This is a non-issue, as Michael Bloch was clearly just being a bit self-righteous. First, the books that were recommended to him were recommended because books that touch upon pseudoscience are naturally grouped together--regardless of whether the books take a creduluous or skeptical approach to them. Bloch's apparent offense would seem to suggest that he expects companies like Amazon.com to distinguish books on such topics by virtue of said acceptance or skepticism of the topic. Obviously, companies are not going to do this, since it's unnecessary. Indeed, what right does Bloch have to tell Amazon what other books to "associate" with Randi's, especially given that Bloch is not authorized to speak on behalf of Randi. Does Bloch seriously expect Amazon to change the way they group their books based on what [b][u]one fan[/u][/b] of one of the books' authors says? Further hurting Bloch's case is the fact that he didn't even read the response Amazon sent him, which was that such groups are determined by computer based on the books that he purchases or browses--which is a perfectly understandable practice. What precisely is it about this that Bloch objects to? Does he see this as an implied statement that Randi's position on these topics and those of their advocates is somehow being [i]equated[/i] by this? Does he feel that one interested in books that approach these topics skeptically would not be interested in those that do not? Why not? Don't skeptics themselves read these books--- [i]mustn't they[/i]---in order to critique them? Doesn't the JREF have its own library of non-skeptical materials on those topics for this precise reason, as Randi has mentioned in his various Commentaries? I certainly accumulated a number of credulous programs on tape during the years before I discovered skepticism, and I certainly didn't chuck them in the garbage after I became one. Referring to them is often necessary, after all, when I debate those topics online with friends. Michael needs to lighten up. - LuigiNovi Sun, 24 May 2009 16:15:53 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6380 [quote]Is the Moon full Downunda?[/quote] Actually it's a mere slither at the moment, rising in the east just before the sun, but I'm not sure that it ever dawns on Hercules. BJ - BillyJoe Sat, 23 May 2009 10:08:24 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6378 If woo-woo books and Randi's books are lumped together in Amazon's categorizing system, then this means people who have purchased woo-woo books are getting recommendations for Randi's books. And that would not be a bad thing. - Kalen Sat, 23 May 2009 09:57:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6370 "Hercules" tells us: "...like thousands in this town already know I am paranormal. " If we include "Abnormal, not-Normal" in the definition of "Paranormal", I'm sure thousands in his town agree. Hundreds of Telly-Vangelists think they're gawd's "chosen messenger", Herk just takes it one step further... - Brookston John Sat, 23 May 2009 06:00:22 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6369 [quote]The librarian says "people can make their own judgements".[/quote] She may be telling you that she is not prepared, or have the required knowledge or expertise, to make that decision. BJ - BillyJoe Sat, 23 May 2009 03:28:00 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6367 Very interesting comments--and enlightening to the non-techies among us! I think part of this is the general insult older people feel at getting absurd form (model) letters that don't really address (directly anyway) the original question. I know we have to "get over it", but it's not always easy to give up the basic things one has spent a lifetime cultivating. I would recommend Netflix's system over Amazon, though because when you call them, you get a person (a polite, intelligent local resident of Portland, Oregon) right away! Their recommendations are pretty good, in my case anyway although I find it amusing that they label any decent film "cerebral". I think there is a much larger concern than Amazon's recommendations on this topic. After all, as has been mentioned, you can simply click "not interested" or log out, etc. What bothers me is the library which shelves science and pseudoscience side-by-side. Now, don't get me wrong (as the librarian invariably does); I am not saying the library should not have woo books, just that they should have their own, clearly marked section. The librarian says "people can make their own judgements". This is irresponsible in my view--many, many people simply do not have the education and experience to make this judgement. Someone who has just been diagnosed with diabetes (type II), for instance, might go the library to read up and pick up (right next to a bona fide medical source) a book by some quack whose name I forget, telling you that it's all caused by (fill in the blank) and all you need to do is eat this or swallow that supplement, which is for sale at the author's website, of course. It all sounds very scientific on the surface and there may even be a reference section, but as the reader has no means to evaluate any of it, well...anyway, I think this is a real problem that has nothing to do with algorithms or even profit motive, but is just bad (junk) library science. - knitwit Sat, 23 May 2009 02:30:47 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6359 ...and don't worry, I've already given myself a negative one. ;D - BillyJoe Fri, 22 May 2009 11:32:54 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6358 ;D Good one. I was going to give you an up vote for that, but I know you always give yourself one so make that a legit one now. ;) BJ - BillyJoe Fri, 22 May 2009 11:31:32 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6357 I know "page" should be capitalized as "Page". What can i say? ITS won't buy us new keyboards... - Brookston John Fri, 22 May 2009 07:42:10 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6356 I looked for some books on the Life and Times of Bettie page once. The Bot still recommends "How to" books on BDSM to me. Not that that's a particularly BAD thing, just not *MY* "thing"... - Brookston John Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:54 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6353 Clearly Michael Bloch, who wrote the [b]TWO[/b] emails is not the only skeptic with far too much time on his hands. - Caller X Fri, 22 May 2009 06:44:39 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6347 [quote]But by far the most important thing to ask oneself is "who cares?"...This sort of complaint just shows what a stuffy bunch of no-it-alls we are. Can we hide it before my 'woo' friends read it? [b]It's embarrassing[/b]...[/quote] Please, let's stop commenting on this article and let it descend to the bottom of the pile where it belongs. BJ - BillyJoe Fri, 22 May 2009 01:22:21 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6346 Like many here, I've worked in neural network search and as has already been pointed out, it 'aint that good. But by far the most important thing to ask oneself is "who cares?". Amazon send out a gazillion of these things every day and they make money from it, I guess that's the only justification they need. This sort of complaint just shows what a stuffy bunch of no-it-alls we are. Can we hide it before my 'woo' friends read it? It's embarrassing... - Andycal Thu, 21 May 2009 20:40:43 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6344 My recommendations from Amazon have always been a bit beturbed. I continually get recommendations for books which I've already purchased...from Amazon yet! Maybe part of their update to the algorithm could be to check previous purchases and any books already marked as 'owned' (I've done many of those as well - from recommendations). There is probably a need for a more indepth categorization scheme but don't ask me how that would be accomplished. - Kuroyume Thu, 21 May 2009 18:30:03 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6343 If I had received that second email I would have read it and then immediately flushed it down the toilet and not wasted any more time on this idiot. Honestly, some people just have no idea. BJ - BillyJoe Thu, 21 May 2009 18:29:44 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6342 Sorry Michael, but you're coming off as a reflexive crank, hassling Amazon because their automated computer recommendation algorithm doesn't work well. Amazon has already very publicly announced that the algorithm doesn't work and that they would like to be at the forefront of this next-step technology. tinyurl.com/qa7qjw Like the James Randi Foundation's $1mil, you can win $1mil for creating a recommendation algorithm that works, sponsored by Netflix. It's a Grail/Rosetta Stone for an entire community of programmers. netflixprize.com/leaderboard - Diverted Chrome Thu, 21 May 2009 15:30:01 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/566-misdirection.html#comment-6341 [quote]This gives me an idea for a book or series of books to be written by someone with far more skill and talent in writing than I have: The title of the book should be woo-woo looking without actually being woo-woo, we want to have truth in advertising after all. The title would cause one to infer woo-woo without actually implying woo-woo. The author would lead the reader slowly but surely and logically through arguments starting from a woo-woo standpoint and ending squarely at a skeptical standpoint.[/quote] I fully support this idea. - mazyloron Thu, 21 May 2009 15:05:25 +0100