I would imagine that if this kind of analysis were to be used on blogs or essays it could make for a wonderful new matchmaking tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.144.249.197 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As SIPs is (potentially) a generic term and not confined to Amazon.com space, then I think it should have its own page Geneffects 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Another useless entry.

Nice enough examples, but really does a terrible job of actually explaining the concept and the practice.134.241.224.121 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any related statistical models or methods out there? Some references or connections would spice this up nicely. 15:35, 5 April 2007

I'd like to have the SIPs algorithm to use as a tool, something like this http://www.onelook.com/reverse-dictionary.shtml reverse dictionary (24.68.170.164 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Regarding the "citation needed" tag for the phrase's more general usage (which stemmed from this edit): you can get 400 hits from search://"statistically improbable phrase" -amazon/ as of January 2008. I mostly hear "SIP" used in chat rooms and other places (without reference to Amazon); I'm not sure what the best way to provide a Wikipedia-quality citation is, but am pretty sure it's in general use now, for some reasonable definition of "general use". --Karl Fogel 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, looking at the "Google hit" metric in detail (the results returned above), it doesn't seem remarkable or reliable. Application of the phrase (SIPs) in contexts other than Amazon appears to mean whatever the person typing the term wants it to mean. I don't see a consistent meaning as stated in the article (noted above as flagged for supporting citation). I also didn't note anything resembling a reliable source commenting on the usage stated. Perhaps it was overlooked? D. Brodale (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)