Talk:Sentiment analysis

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Marketing & Advertising Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Forever kka.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thetrailblazer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs reworking[edit]

This page retains its incremental authoring history and needs to be pulled into shape more systematically. Jussi Karlgren (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Types of sentiment analysis[edit]

The passage on sentiment analysis that explains how scale based approaches work has a minor ambiguity. Does it refer to techniques that assess the sentiment of a given term by adjusting the score relative to the other terms in the environment or does it refer to techniques that assess the sentiment of sentences by pooling the scores of different words? I am going to assume that it refers to the former and adjust the entry slightly --Rilinger (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

In reviewing this page, it seems that the weakest part of the page is the last section attempting to associate web2.0 and sentiment analysis. The rest could use some technical cleanup, but that section doesn't seem to add a lot of value. Anybody feel differently? Sredmore (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A section on the ethics of sentiment analysis would be more than welcome.

I think this needs a reference "The shorter the string of text, the harder it becomes." because I would have thought that the shorter the text the EASIER it would be to determine sentiment, due to the sentiment being more condensed. Lanksalot

I also have doubts about "The shorter the string...". Yesterday I heard a presentation from an expert on sentiment analysis who said that shorter texts are easier. MikeStantonBcn (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last year i benefited from this page greatly, I wanted to contribute a bit. Sentiment analysis have shifted to microblogging tools like twitter. Analysis of blogs, articles or news pieces are still there, but many industrial applications have been built on top of Twitter. I added a reference to a recent work(EDIT: THIS IS MY PAPER, I WANTED TO ADD THIS INFORMATION IN CASE YOU USE MY ADDED REFERENCE). I will look for others as well, but I think Twitter part of this Wikipedia article is very inadequate. This was the article I added: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1964867 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.170.151 (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation[edit]

Section on Evaluation needs to mention some references!!! It is too factual in order to be unsuported by literature. Otherwise this article looks good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.224.201 (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm trying to find a citation for this claim in the lead sentence of the Evaluation section: "The accuracy of a sentiment analysis system is, in principle, how well it agrees with human judgments. This is usually measured by precision and recall. However, human raters typically agree about 70% of the time" barryparr —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Added some recent references, but needs much more. Jussi Karlgren (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

This sentence: "Automation impacts approximately 23% of comments that are correctly classified by humans." I am really not sure what the author means by "impacts." My guess is that this was intended to say "Automated methods correctly label approximately 23% of comments that are correctly classified by humans, where correct human classification is estimated by inter-rater agreement." Rpgoldman (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns over article content: Intensity ranking[edit]

Hello!

On the 21th of October I added a new sub-heading under "Types" labelled 'Intensity Ranking'. And I proceeded to describe what that function does. But that edit was removed by MrOllie. Was wondering what did I do wrong or how I could improve upon it?

Thanks for the guidance!

Turq6ise (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said last time you asked me about this on my talk page, contributions to Wikipedia must not promote individual companies or services such as SenticNet. Sourcing should come from independent secondary sources, preferably review articles in this space. MrOllie (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Ollie, I recently edited the article and removed promotion of individual companies/services. Sourcing came from independent secondary sources! Do let me know if there is any improvements I can make!

Thank you. Turq6ise (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]