Better than google translate...

89 UKDM BA4 4WS (resto job!) · Post by **wurlycorner** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:00 pm

http://www.blablameter.com/index.php

Post by **NafemanNathan** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:05 pm

PR-Experts, politicians, ad writers, scientists or Donald need to be strong here!

Post by **Donald** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:06 pm

I did just check my milk analogy and I only scored a 0.1, must be some sense in there

Post by **Merlin** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:06 pm

That could be useful

Post by **Donald** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:09 pm

Wurly this is terrible, I just tested Nafe's explanation of wheel offset (which was very comprehensive) and it was 0.4.

What words is it picking out?

89 UKDM BA4 4WS (resto job!) · Post by **wurlycorner** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:19 pm

I don't know, but it can't be all bad...

"I have a dream" scored 0.09 (no indications)
Whereas Rumsfeld's "known unknows" speech scored 0.14 (a few indications)
and a random Sarah Palin speech scores 0.17

So it's clearly heading in the right direction!

I am wondering what will get it to score a very high level of BS though...

Post by **NafemanNathan** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:21 pm

Well it would recognise any of the verses or chorus of Wanna be startin somethin so...

89 UKDM BA4 4WS (resto job!) · Post by **wurlycorner** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:28 pm

It must be working...

Carly Fiorina's speech explaining why the HP merger with Compaq was a good thing, scores 0.47;
"Something's getting a bit fishy. You probably want to sell something, or you're trying to impress somebody. It still may be an acceptable result for a scientific text"

I think maximum bullshit must be a score of 1!

Post by **Donald** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:55 pm

The removal of existing and exactly from a block of text both dropped the rating by 0.1 when removed individually, but combined it remained at a 0.1 drop.