Apparently, some college student did an analysis of its outpourings. I gather something to do with research into an unfortunate condition know as "keyboard diarrhoea", since the student needed a particularly severe sufferer as a subject.
From the results I saw, apparently:
71% of its outpourings, across all forums, were on the subject of or referenced Bradford in some way. (Apparently, these findings were handed on to another student who was doing a thesis on "obsessive cyber behaviour")
Of that 71%, 6.2% were factually correct or broadly reasonable (yes, I was susprised it was so high, too). 37.4% were made up. 43.6% were nonsense that bore little resemblance to reality, 9.7% appeared to be words in random order or incomplete, and 3.1% were referred to the university's legal team as the student was concerned they contained libel.
The student checked with various Bradford supporters, and apparently a considerable number were already well aware of the facts in the 6.2%, but elected not to shout off on public forums.
I gather the results were not passed on to the subject, due to concern it would only encourage it and make its condition even worse.
By way of a control, ten monkeys (not all from Wakefield) were given tests to determine the corresponding percentages in their decision-making process. sdmittedly, the tests were harder for the monkeys, since they were tested on a wider range of behaviours, not just Bradford obsession, but the results were still deemed to be relevant. Apparently the Monkeys produced 19.6% that was correct
