andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-2054 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: This one is fun because I have a double conflict of interest: I’ve been paid (at different times) both by Google and by Microsoft. Here’s the story: Microsoft, September 2012 : An independent research company, Answers Research based in San Diego, CA, conducted a study using a representative online sample of nearly 1000 people, ages 18 and older from across the US. The participants were chosen from a random survey panel and were required to have used a major search engine in the past month. Participants were not aware that Microsoft was involved. In the test, participants were shown the main web search results pane of both Bing and Google for 10 search queries of their choice. Bing and Google search results were shown side-by-side on one page for easy comparison – with all branding removed from both search engines. The test did not include ads or content in other parts of the page such as Bing’s Snapshot and Social Search panes and Google’s Knowledge Graph. For each search,
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Here’s the story: Microsoft, September 2012 : An independent research company, Answers Research based in San Diego, CA, conducted a study using a representative online sample of nearly 1000 people, ages 18 and older from across the US. [sent-2, score-0.263]
2 The participants were chosen from a random survey panel and were required to have used a major search engine in the past month. [sent-3, score-0.616]
3 In the test, participants were shown the main web search results pane of both Bing and Google for 10 search queries of their choice. [sent-5, score-0.856]
4 Bing and Google search results were shown side-by-side on one page for easy comparison – with all branding removed from both search engines. [sent-6, score-0.75]
5 For each search, the participant was asked which search engine provided the best results – “Left side search engine”, “Right side search engine”, or “Draw. [sent-8, score-1.233]
6 When the results were tallied, the outcome was clear – people chose Bing web search results over Google nearly 2:1 in the blind comparison tests. [sent-10, score-0.776]
7 A group at Yale Law School, October 2013 : In advertisements associated with its ―Bing It On‖ campaign, Microsoft claimed that ―people preferred Bing web search results nearly 2:1 over Google in blind comparison tests. [sent-15, score-0.645]
8 It seems a bit much to claim false advertising because a 2013 survey on Mechanical Turk differs from a 2012 survey on a random sample of Americans. [sent-23, score-0.526]
9 In Microsoft’s original study, it appears that the purpose of the study was somewhat concealed, whereas the Yale study went directly through the Bing website. [sent-25, score-0.156]
10 So, lots of differences from two very different studies performed on two very different populations under two very different conditions (see Bob’s comment for more on that point), a year apart. [sent-26, score-0.303]
11 That’s a reasonable point but I think I’d prefer to go with the random sample and just reweight. [sent-30, score-0.204]
12 In any case, it hardly seems like deceptive advertising for Microsoft to make a claim about Americans, based on a random sample of Americans. [sent-31, score-0.346]
13 Suppose Microsoft had done a MTurk study and the Yale group turned around and found a much different result using a third-party random sample. [sent-33, score-0.212]
14 I can only assume that they’d be saying that Microsoft was doing illegal advertising by representing the results of a convenience sample as if it were real. [sent-34, score-0.343]
15 I was thinking that, because the authors of this 2013 paper wrote that Microsoft could be sued for false advertising, that they believe that Microsoft did illegally false advertising. [sent-36, score-0.167]
16 I’m no fan of their search engine, but their study seems much more professional to me. [sent-44, score-0.402]
17 Ultimately, Bing wins for some searches and for some users, and Google wins for other searches and for other users. [sent-46, score-0.356]
18 The statistical message here is that in the presence of large and systematic variation, different experimental conditions will give you different average treatment effects. [sent-50, score-0.162]
19 A fight that benefits both sides Often we say that, in a fight, both sides lose. [sent-55, score-0.169]
20 (Just consider: if Microsoft had just released this study on its own, not in the context of a ham-handed attack, maybe I’d be posting on all the reasons not to take the Bing claims seriously. [sent-58, score-0.155]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('bing', 0.598), ('microsoft', 0.453), ('search', 0.281), ('google', 0.221), ('yale', 0.167), ('searches', 0.132), ('engine', 0.117), ('results', 0.106), ('advertising', 0.106), ('participants', 0.102), ('sample', 0.082), ('random', 0.079), ('study', 0.078), ('bingiton', 0.077), ('mturk', 0.07), ('chose', 0.069), ('false', 0.064), ('legal', 0.064), ('nearly', 0.064), ('sides', 0.062), ('side', 0.057), ('different', 0.055), ('blind', 0.054), ('participant', 0.053), ('conditions', 0.052), ('turk', 0.051), ('web', 0.05), ('illegal', 0.049), ('populations', 0.047), ('variation', 0.047), ('comparison', 0.046), ('wins', 0.046), ('fun', 0.045), ('fight', 0.045), ('preferred', 0.044), ('seems', 0.043), ('prefer', 0.043), ('bit', 0.042), ('attack', 0.042), ('terms', 0.041), ('performed', 0.039), ('claims', 0.039), ('conducted', 0.039), ('authors', 0.039), ('maybe', 0.038), ('users', 0.038), ('survey', 0.037), ('claim', 0.036), ('names', 0.036), ('shown', 0.036)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 2054 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-07-Bing is preferred to Google by people who aren’t like me
Introduction: This one is fun because I have a double conflict of interest: I’ve been paid (at different times) both by Google and by Microsoft. Here’s the story: Microsoft, September 2012 : An independent research company, Answers Research based in San Diego, CA, conducted a study using a representative online sample of nearly 1000 people, ages 18 and older from across the US. The participants were chosen from a random survey panel and were required to have used a major search engine in the past month. Participants were not aware that Microsoft was involved. In the test, participants were shown the main web search results pane of both Bing and Google for 10 search queries of their choice. Bing and Google search results were shown side-by-side on one page for easy comparison – with all branding removed from both search engines. The test did not include ads or content in other parts of the page such as Bing’s Snapshot and Social Search panes and Google’s Knowledge Graph. For each search,
2 0.1960113 530 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-22-MS-Bayes?
Introduction: I received the following email: Did you know that it looks like Microsoft is entering the modeling game? I mean, outside of Excel. I recently received an email at work from a MS research contractor looking for ppl that program in R, SAS, Matlab, Excel, and Mathematica. . . . So far I [the person who sent me this email] haven’t seen anything about applying any actual models. Only stuff about assigning variables, deleting rows, merging tables, etc. I don’t know how common knowledge this all is within the statistical community. I did a quick google search for the name of the programming language and didn’t come up with anything. That sounds cool. Working with anything from Microsoft sounds pretty horrible, but it would be useful to have another modeling language out there, just for checking our answers if nothing else.
3 0.18644989 1219 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-18-Tips on “great design” from . . . Microsoft!
Introduction: I came across this (link from here ): A post . . . reminded me of a great technique I [@destraynor] learned about from Bill Buxton. Bill is a Principal Researcher in Microsoft where his main role focuses on designing a company that permits great design to happen. As many have learned to their peril, it’s not simply a case of just dumping talent in a room full of Ikea furniture. In large companies you have to design the process that creates design. One key idea Bill advocates is an emphasis on exploring the solution space before iterating on a solution. . . . It goes on from there, but all I could think of was . . . this must be the first time the words “Microsoft” and “a company that permits great design to happen” have ever appeared in the same sentence. Sure, Clippy was great and Windows Vista has changed how we think about the world, but what great things has Microsoft done lately? Next in the series: Automobile design tips from the creator of the AMC Gremlin! OK, ok,
4 0.14404535 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
Introduction: A few months ago I questioned Dan Ariely’s belief that Google is the voice of the people by reporting the following bizarre options that Google gave to complete the simplest search I could think of: Several commenters gave informed discussions about what was going on in Google’s program. Maybe things are better now, though? The latest version seems much more reasonable: (Aleks sent this to me, then I checked on my own computer and got the same thing.)
Introduction: One thing we do here at the Applied Statistics Center is hold mini-conferences. The next one looks really cool. It’s organized by Sharad Goel and Jake Hofman (Microsoft Research, formerly at Yahoo Research), David Park (Columbia University), and Sergei Vassilvitskii (Google). As with our other conferences, one of our goals is to mix the academic and nonacademic research communities. Here’s the website for the workshop, and here’s the announcement from the organizers: With an explosion of data on every aspect of our everyday existence — from what we buy, to where we travel, to who we know — we are able to observe human behavior with granularity largely thought impossible just a decade ago. The growth of such online activity has further facilitated the design of web-based experiments, enhancing both the scale and efficiency of traditional methods. Together these advances have created an unprecedented opportunity to address longstanding questions in the social sciences, rang
7 0.12404779 911 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-More data tools worth using from Google
8 0.11509783 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
9 0.11309799 1630 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-18-Postdoc positions at Microsoft Research – NYC
10 0.10621878 1421 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-19-Alexa, Maricel, and Marty: Three cellular automata who got on my nerves
11 0.10613593 1885 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-06-Leahy Versus Albedoman and the Moneygoround, Part One
12 0.10472652 1640 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-26-What do people do wrong? WSJ columnist is looking for examples!
13 0.097923443 1721 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-13-A must-read paper on statistical analysis of experimental data
14 0.094749242 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
15 0.093900621 252 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-02-R needs a good function to make line plots
16 0.093188375 1297 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-New New York data research organizations
17 0.090224668 620 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-19-Online James?
18 0.086511441 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
19 0.086034939 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
20 0.08563333 1066 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Ripley on model selection, and some links on exploratory model analysis
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.144), (1, -0.046), (2, 0.012), (3, -0.059), (4, 0.042), (5, 0.014), (6, -0.004), (7, -0.011), (8, -0.011), (9, -0.024), (10, -0.03), (11, -0.044), (12, 0.033), (13, -0.008), (14, -0.035), (15, 0.052), (16, 0.014), (17, -0.018), (18, 0.009), (19, 0.006), (20, -0.033), (21, -0.01), (22, 0.002), (23, -0.018), (24, -0.016), (25, 0.001), (26, -0.013), (27, 0.013), (28, -0.008), (29, 0.013), (30, -0.015), (31, -0.042), (32, 0.027), (33, 0.022), (34, -0.057), (35, 0.036), (36, -0.015), (37, -0.044), (38, -0.021), (39, -0.003), (40, 0.064), (41, 0.006), (42, 0.068), (43, 0.128), (44, -0.038), (45, 0.001), (46, 0.014), (47, 0.025), (48, 0.018), (49, -0.08)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95722288 2054 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-07-Bing is preferred to Google by people who aren’t like me
Introduction: This one is fun because I have a double conflict of interest: I’ve been paid (at different times) both by Google and by Microsoft. Here’s the story: Microsoft, September 2012 : An independent research company, Answers Research based in San Diego, CA, conducted a study using a representative online sample of nearly 1000 people, ages 18 and older from across the US. The participants were chosen from a random survey panel and were required to have used a major search engine in the past month. Participants were not aware that Microsoft was involved. In the test, participants were shown the main web search results pane of both Bing and Google for 10 search queries of their choice. Bing and Google search results were shown side-by-side on one page for easy comparison – with all branding removed from both search engines. The test did not include ads or content in other parts of the page such as Bing’s Snapshot and Social Search panes and Google’s Knowledge Graph. For each search,
2 0.75696015 1559 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-02-The blog is back
Introduction: We had some security problem: not an actual virus or anything, but a potential leak which caused Google to blacklist us. Cord fixed us and now we’re fine. Good job, Google! Better to find the potential problem before there is any harm!
Introduction: Gayle Laackmann reports ( link from Felix Salmon) that Microsoft, Google, etc. don’t actually ask brain-teasers in their job interviews. The actually ask a lot of questions about programming. (I looked here and was relieved to see that the questions aren’t very hard. I could probably get a job as an entry-level programmer if I needed to.) Laackmann writes: Let’s look at the very widely circulated “15 Google Interview Questions that will make you feel stupid” list [ here's the original list , I think, from Lewis Lin] . . . these questions are fake. Fake fake fake. How can you tell that they’re fake? Because one of them is “Why are manhole covers round?” This is an infamous Microsoft interview question that has since been so very, very banned at both companies . I find it very hard to believe that a Google interviewer asked such a question. We’ll get back to the manhole question in a bit. Lacakmann reports that she never saw any IQ tests in three years of interviewi
4 0.70836395 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
Introduction: Eric Loken writes : If you’re used to Google upending conventional wisdom, then yesterday’s interview with Laszlo Bock in the New York Times did not disappoint. Google has determined that test scores and transcripts are useless because they don’t predict performance among its employees. . . . I [Loken] am going to assume they’re well aware of the limits of their claim, and instead I’m going say that as readers of the interview we should not lose sight of a fundamental fact - Across a wide variety of employment settings, one of the most robust findings in organizational psychology is that tests of cognitive ability are strong predictors of job performance. If Google has found otherwise, what they have found is that grades and test scores are not predictive of performance at Google. In general, in the workplace tests are still highly predictive of success. If all the research says that test scores and grades predict performance, why would the people at Google want to igno
5 0.65411901 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
Introduction: A few months ago I questioned Dan Ariely’s belief that Google is the voice of the people by reporting the following bizarre options that Google gave to complete the simplest search I could think of: Several commenters gave informed discussions about what was going on in Google’s program. Maybe things are better now, though? The latest version seems much more reasonable: (Aleks sent this to me, then I checked on my own computer and got the same thing.)
6 0.64809799 927 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-26-R and Google Visualization
7 0.62729013 476 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-19-Google’s word count statistics viewer
8 0.62307066 1061 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-CrossValidated: A place to post your statistics questions
9 0.61428279 1289 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-29-We go to war with the data we have, not the data we want
10 0.6012938 2049 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-On house arrest for p-hacking
11 0.59950137 1434 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-29-FindTheData.org
12 0.59770381 1640 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-26-What do people do wrong? WSJ columnist is looking for examples!
13 0.59631604 748 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-06-Why your Klout score is meaningless
14 0.59602273 1191 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-01-Hoe noem je?
15 0.59569275 910 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-Google Refine
16 0.59513712 1596 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-29-More consulting experiences, this time in computational linguistics
17 0.59322441 157 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-21-Roller coasters, charity, profit, hmmm
18 0.58948112 911 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-15-More data tools worth using from Google
19 0.58916014 1053 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-11-This one is so dumb it makes me want to barf
20 0.58851421 48 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-The bane of many causes
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.02), (15, 0.043), (16, 0.068), (21, 0.017), (24, 0.126), (32, 0.011), (64, 0.014), (76, 0.035), (77, 0.107), (86, 0.015), (90, 0.019), (98, 0.068), (99, 0.296)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97344607 2054 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-07-Bing is preferred to Google by people who aren’t like me
Introduction: This one is fun because I have a double conflict of interest: I’ve been paid (at different times) both by Google and by Microsoft. Here’s the story: Microsoft, September 2012 : An independent research company, Answers Research based in San Diego, CA, conducted a study using a representative online sample of nearly 1000 people, ages 18 and older from across the US. The participants were chosen from a random survey panel and were required to have used a major search engine in the past month. Participants were not aware that Microsoft was involved. In the test, participants were shown the main web search results pane of both Bing and Google for 10 search queries of their choice. Bing and Google search results were shown side-by-side on one page for easy comparison – with all branding removed from both search engines. The test did not include ads or content in other parts of the page such as Bing’s Snapshot and Social Search panes and Google’s Knowledge Graph. For each search,
2 0.96635121 1784 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-01-Wolfram on Mandelbrot
Introduction: The most perfect pairing of author and subject since Nicholson Baker and John Updike. Here’s Wolfram on the great researcher of fractals : In his way, Mandelbrot paid me some great compliments. When I was in my 20s, and he in his 60s, he would ask about my scientific work: “How can so many people take someone so young so seriously?” In 2002, my book “A New Kind of Science”—in which I argued that many phenomena across science are the complex results of relatively simple, program-like rules—appeared. Mandelbrot seemed to see it as a direct threat, once declaring that “Wolfram’s ‘science’ is not new except when it is clearly wrong; it deserves to be completely disregarded.” In private, though, several mutual friends told me, he fretted that in the long view of history it would overwhelm his work. In retrospect, I don’t think Mandelbrot had much to worry about on this account. The link from the above review came from Peter Woit, who also points to a review by Brian Hayes wit
3 0.96610427 1684 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-20-Ugly ugly ugly
Introduction: Denis Cote sends the following , under the heading, “Some bad graphs for your enjoyment”: To start with, they don’t know how to spell “color.” Seriously, though, the graph is a mess. The circular display implies a circular or periodic structure that isn’t actually in the data, the cramped display requires the use of an otherwise-unnecessary color code that makes it difficult to find or make sense of the information, the alphabetical ordering (without even supplying state names, only abbreviations) makes it further difficult to find any patterns. It would be so much better, and even easier, to just display a set of small maps shading states on whether they have different laws. But that’s part of the problem—the clearer graph would also be easier to make! To get a distinctive graph, there needs to be some degree of difficulty. The designers continue with these monstrosities: Here they decide to display only 5 states at a time so that it’s really hard to see any big pi
4 0.96548676 1604 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-04-An epithet I can live with
Introduction: Here . Indeed, I’d much rather be a legend than a myth. I just want to clarify one thing. Walter Hickey writes: [Antony Unwin and Andrew Gelman] collaborated on this presentation where they take a hard look at what’s wrong with the recent trends of data visualization and infographics. The takeaway is that while there have been great leaps in visualization technology, some of the visualizations that have garnered the highest praises have actually been lacking in a number of key areas. Specifically, the pair does a takedown of the top visualizations of 2008 as decided by the popular statistics blog Flowing Data. This is a fair summary, but I want to emphasize that, although our dislike of some award-winning visualizations is central to our argument, it is only the first part of our story. As Antony and I worked more on our paper, and especially after seeing the discussions by Robert Kosara, Stephen Few, Hadley Wickham, and Paul Murrell (all to appear in Journal of Computati
5 0.96318519 978 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-28-Cool job opening with brilliant researchers at Yahoo
Introduction: Duncan Watts writes: The Human Social Dynamics Group in Yahoo Research is seeking highly qualified candidates for a post-doctoral research scientist position. The Human and Social Dynamics group is devoted to understanding the interplay between individual-level behavior (e.g. how people make decisions about what music they like, which dates to go on, or which groups to join) and the social environment in which individual behavior necessarily plays itself out. In particular, we are interested in: * Structure and evolution of social groups and networks * Decision making, social influence, diffusion, and collective decisions * Networking and collaborative problem solving. The intrinsically multi-disciplinary and cross-cutting nature of the subject demands an eclectic range of researchers, both in terms of domain-expertise (e.g. decision sciences, social psychology, sociology) and technical skills (e.g. statistical analysis, mathematical modeling, computer simulations, design o
6 0.95940405 1124 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-17-How to map geographically-detailed survey responses?
7 0.95463932 562 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-06-Statistician cracks Toronto lottery
8 0.95252562 1561 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-04-Someone is wrong on the internet
9 0.9521333 93 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-My proposal for making college admissions fairer
12 0.94576645 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
13 0.94568902 57 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Roth and Amsterdam
14 0.94410741 216 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-18-More forecasting competitions
15 0.94308269 614 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-15-Induction within a model, deductive inference for model evaluation
16 0.94222558 1788 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-04-When is there “hidden structure in data” to be discovered?
17 0.94200933 2122 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-03-Objects of the class “Lawrence Summers”: Arne Duncan edition
18 0.94131136 1948 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-21-Bayes related
19 0.94070256 2007 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Popper and Jaynes
20 0.93931985 128 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-05-The greatest works of statistics never published