let me rephrase a bit of what I said earlier. everyone comments prove to be very insightful, honest and sometimes funny, having our paper peer reviewed (by actual humans by the way) proved to be very insightful also. I do not want to cut short the input that we have received from submitting our paper to a credible journal ran by actual peers in our field
I am not sure how to start a new thread in this discussion, so I will just reply to the first post.
I am one of the people that designed the program and would like to thank everyone for their comments. They prove to be a little more honest, if not more insightful, than the ones we received when having our paper pier reviewed.
I would like to address some of the comments made on the web-site. First off the web page is not designed to detect new, poetry, or blogs, although it might incorrectly classify text from these sources as authentic academic scientific papers. It is also not designed to detect authentic text based on abstracts or parts of papers. The web-site is not perfect, and we realize this.
Secondly I would like to address those of you who have discovered that repeating parts of inauthentic papers, or simply repeating parts of a paper many times can break the web-site. This is something that we realized a few months ago, but never did anything to fix. We never imagined that we would receive so much attention because of the web-page. This was more of a side project for all of us. We have created a remedy to this problem, and if anyone detects that the problem still exists please let us know.
I would also like to apologize to anyone who has had their own personal works classified as inauthentic, weather it be because of the faultiness of our predictor or...because of other reasons
Slashdot Mirror
let me rephrase a bit of what I said earlier. everyone comments prove to be very insightful, honest and sometimes funny, having our paper peer reviewed (by actual humans by the way) proved to be very insightful also. I do not want to cut short the input that we have received from submitting our paper to a credible journal ran by actual peers in our field
I am not sure how to start a new thread in this discussion, so I will just reply to the first post. I am one of the people that designed the program and would like to thank everyone for their comments. They prove to be a little more honest, if not more insightful, than the ones we received when having our paper pier reviewed. I would like to address some of the comments made on the web-site. First off the web page is not designed to detect new, poetry, or blogs, although it might incorrectly classify text from these sources as authentic academic scientific papers. It is also not designed to detect authentic text based on abstracts or parts of papers. The web-site is not perfect, and we realize this. Secondly I would like to address those of you who have discovered that repeating parts of inauthentic papers, or simply repeating parts of a paper many times can break the web-site. This is something that we realized a few months ago, but never did anything to fix. We never imagined that we would receive so much attention because of the web-page. This was more of a side project for all of us. We have created a remedy to this problem, and if anyone detects that the problem still exists please let us know. I would also like to apologize to anyone who has had their own personal works classified as inauthentic, weather it be because of the faultiness of our predictor or...because of other reasons