The precision of the bolded results looks like maybe 30% to me. Significantly better than the non-bolded, but nowhere near perfect precision.

False positives become an increasingly difficult problem the more and more potential authors you introduce. If I had wrote a fancier model it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem but what can you do.

Yes, this wasn't a criticism of the tool. It is crazy good.

But I don't think people should be making the assumption that bolded results are definite alts, which sillysaurus' comment reads like.

Hmm, that wasn’t my intent. I see this tool as a recommendation engine more than a doxxer. By “signal to noise ratio close to infinity,” I meant that if you visit one of the bolded accounts, they’ll probably sound a lot like you.

It’s one of those ideas that makes the tool substantially more effective, yet never would’ve occurred to me. It’s like the simplicity of pg’s “a plan for spam” algorithm: deceptively simple, but (like scrubbing dishes with fingers) works really well.

Of my top 20, 19 are bold, all are above 0.6, and I have no alts.

Vast majority of my top 20 were bold, except you funnily enough!

None of them are me (and you were the only one I recognised and thought "yeah, I can see where it gets it from"...)

I have 7 bolded names (0.53-0.62) in the top 20 list, and none are alts of mine.

I'm one of them and I can confirm. But then again that's what I'd say if I was.

Hi style-adjacent friend :-). Just briefly looking at your recent comment history, we seem to find different kinds of articles interesting, but maybe have a similar writing style.

Pretty much the exact same. (I do have a throwaway account but I rarely use it and it probably hasn't been used enough to qualify.)

The funny thing is that I thought of it while eating dinner last night :)

My results have 5 bolded users in my top 20, and I have 0 alt accounts.