,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Time for results of my unscientific poll (thread):
In the 48 hours the poll was active, 286 twitter users responded. 2/
This does not count the replies that came in as tweets instead of votes. 3/
Of those 286 twitter users, an unknown number are bots. 4/
Of the human subset of the twitter users, an unknown number identify as #NLProc people. 5/
Of those 286 responses, an unknown number were stray clicks. 6/
Of the human subset, an unknown number share my (or your) definitions of #NLProc and/or #linguistics. 7/
The 286 responses (from bots and/or humans, #NLProc or otherwise) break down like this: 
Impressionistically, once the responses totaled >100, the percentages stayed fairly stable. 9/
As is hopefully clear, one can’t draw any conclusions from a poll like this. 10/
Nonetheless, I offer some discussion: 11/
I hope that this is not in fact representative of the #NLProc community (as defined by e.g. submitting to *ACL venues). 12/
Why? B/c it would contradict my charitable reading of the lack of ling. sophistication in much #NLProc work in submitted to/such venues. 13/
I’d rather believe it’s bc the authors don’t know better, not bc they do have some background in linguistics and aren’t applying it. <fin>
