1.82 score from hupso.pl for:
gandenberger.org



HTML Content


Titlegreg gandenberger – data scientist

Length: 34, Words: 4
Description data scientist

Length: 14, Words: 2
Keywords pusty
Robots noodp,noydir
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 521
Text/HTML 18.22 %
Headings H1 2
H2 1
H3 0
H4 1
H5 0
H6 0
H1
greg gandenberger
about
H2
data scientist
H3
H4
H5
H6
strong
b
i
em
Bolds strong 0
b 0
i 0
em 0
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name exist
Pliki zewnętrzne 30
Pliki CSS 9
Pliki javascript 21
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 17
Linki wewnętrzne 0
Linki zewnętrzne 17
Linki bez atrybutu Title 17
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

pusty

Linki zewnętrzne

- http://gandenberger.org/
greg gandenberger http://gandenberger.org/
about http://gandenberger.org/about/
research http://gandenberger.org/research/
blog http://gandenberger.org/blog/
tools http://gandenberger.org/tools/
contact http://gandenberger.org/contact/
https://github.com/gsganden
https://www.linkedin.com/in/greggandenberger?trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile_pic
http://gandenberger.org/feed
https://twitter.com/ggandenberger
genesis http://www.studiopress.com/
- http://gandenberger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/dsc_0191-ps.jpg
uptake http://uptake.com/
here http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/3/475
preprint http://gandenberger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/new_proof_of_lp_post.pdf
here http://gandenberger.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/stopping-rules.pdf

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 2
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 2
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 2
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/efedc95784b33ec9dbc8ae53e5a5cbd7?s=224&d=mm&r=g
http://gandenberger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/dsc_0191-ps-1024x426.jpg

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/efedc95784b33ec9dbc8ae53e5a5cbd7?s=224&d=mm&r=g
http://gandenberger.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/dsc_0191-ps-1024x426.jpg

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

greg gandenbergerdata scientist data scientist about / research / blog tools / contact  powered by genesisabout i am a data scientist at uptake in chicago. this website is primarily about the research i carried out during my academic career. i have a ph.d. in history and philosophy of science and an ma in statistics, both from the university of pittsburgh. my research academic addressed questions about the proper use and interpretation of statistical methods. for instance, one question i addressed is whether our statistical methods should take into account facts about why an experiment ended when it did. consider, for instance, a case in which a pharmaceutical company watches the data from a drug trial as it comes in and ends the trial as soon as it produces a nominally statistically significant result in favor of the claim that the drug is effective. it might seem that we should be more reluctant to accept the claim that the drug is effective on the basis of this trial than in a parallel case in which the same data are produced but the sample size is fixed in advance. on the other hand, there is something odd about this idea. i have described two hypothetical scenarios that produce exactly the same data. the only difference between the two scenarios is a difference in the intentions of the drug company about when to end the trial, which turns out to make no difference to when the trial actually ends. it is hard to see how this ineffectual difference in intentions could make a difference to the evidential import of the data, and if it doesn’t make a difference to the evidential import of the data, then it is hard to see why it should affect our willingness to accept the conclusion that the drug is effective. frequentist statistical methods accord with the first view, according to which a difference in an experiment’s “stopping rule” can make a difference to the conclusions it warrants. bayesian statistical methods are generally regarded as according with the second, according to which stopping rules cannot make such a difference under typical circumstances (including the circumstances described above). the view that stopping rules are typically irrelevant to evidential import also follows from a bayesian claim called the likelihood principle, which i have written about here (preprint). my contribution to this debate is to show frequentists are often right in practice even if bayesians are right in principle: stopping rules typically do not make a difference to bayesian posterior probabilities, but maximizing expected utility may require a bayesian decision-maker who engages in repeated interactions with scientists to take them into account in order to avoid incentivizing experimental designs that he or she regards as suboptimal. this conclusion is a victory for frequentists in that it shows that they are often right in practice, and it is a victory for bayesians in that it at least goes some way toward reconciling their principles with widely held intuitions about scenarios like the two described above. my paper about this topic is available here.


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 489

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 8.38% (41)
out - 2.45% (12)
difference - 2.04% (10)
about - 2.04% (10)
that - 2.04% (10)
data - 1.64% (8)
and - 1.64% (8)
this - 1.43% (7)
make - 1.43% (7)
are - 1.43% (7)
bayesian - 1.23% (6)
which - 1.23% (6)
trial - 1.02% (5)
statistical - 1.02% (5)
drug - 1.02% (5)
end - 0.82% (4)
accord - 0.82% (4)
with - 0.82% (4)
stopping - 0.82% (4)
scientist - 0.82% (4)
methods - 0.82% (4)
for - 0.82% (4)
from - 0.61% (3)
see - 0.61% (3)
evidential - 0.61% (3)
import - 0.61% (3)
conclusion - 0.61% (3)
frequentist - 0.61% (3)
when - 0.61% (3)
scenarios - 0.61% (3)
can - 0.61% (3)
research - 0.61% (3)
typical - 0.61% (3)
described - 0.61% (3)
rules - 0.61% (3)
here - 0.61% (3)
right - 0.61% (3)
according - 0.61% (3)
how - 0.61% (3)
two - 0.61% (3)
experiment - 0.61% (3)
effective - 0.61% (3)
take - 0.61% (3)
claim - 0.61% (3)
but - 0.61% (3)
should - 0.61% (3)
have - 0.61% (3)
produce - 0.61% (3)
practice - 0.41% (2)
bayesians - 0.41% (2)
often - 0.41% (2)
why - 0.41% (2)
typically - 0.41% (2)
not - 0.41% (2)
account - 0.41% (2)
victory - 0.41% (2)
view - 0.41% (2)
ends - 0.41% (2)
circumstances - 0.41% (2)
accept - 0.41% (2)
into - 0.41% (2)
academic - 0.41% (2)
effective. - 0.41% (2)
intentions - 0.41% (2)
addressed - 0.41% (2)
same - 0.41% (2)
our - 0.41% (2)
data, - 0.41% (2)
case - 0.41% (2)
hard - 0.41% (2)
instance, - 0.41% (2)
question - 0.41% (2)
company - 0.41% (2)
some - 0.41% (2)
a difference - 1.43% (7)
statistical methods - 0.82% (4)
make a - 0.82% (4)
difference to - 0.82% (4)
of the - 0.82% (4)
that the - 0.82% (4)
stopping rules - 0.61% (3)
evidential import - 0.61% (3)
to the - 0.61% (3)
right in - 0.61% (3)
drug is - 0.61% (3)
the data - 0.61% (3)
the conclusion - 0.41% (2)
often right - 0.41% (2)
into account - 0.41% (2)
victory for - 0.41% (2)
are often - 0.41% (2)
according to - 0.41% (2)
to which - 0.41% (2)
a victory - 0.41% (2)
in practice - 0.41% (2)
an experiment - 0.41% (2)
the data, - 0.41% (2)
import of - 0.41% (2)
the evidential - 0.41% (2)
case in - 0.41% (2)
to see - 0.41% (2)
is hard - 0.41% (2)
the two - 0.41% (2)
the same - 0.41% (2)
in which - 0.41% (2)
to accept - 0.41% (2)
the claim - 0.41% (2)
trial as - 0.41% (2)
from a - 0.41% (2)
which a - 0.41% (2)
in that - 0.41% (2)
make a difference - 0.82% (4)
the drug is - 0.61% (3)
that the drug - 0.61% (3)
case in which - 0.41% (2)
the claim that - 0.41% (2)
it is hard - 0.41% (2)
to the evidential - 0.41% (2)
import of the - 0.41% (2)
evidential import of - 0.41% (2)
according to which - 0.41% (2)
often right in - 0.41% (2)
is a victory - 0.41% (2)
a victory for - 0.41% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.