|
|
Posted by JDS on 09/25/26 11:40
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:17:31 +0000, Nick Kew wrote:
> [1] I have worked as a statistician, and I've seen how things happen when
> there is *no data* to validate some part of the underlying model used. It
> goes like this:
> - Someone picks a figure effectively at random on a 'seems
> reasonable' basis just to have something to work with. That enables
> them to derive numbers from the model.
> - They also try the model with different figures, to test
> the effect of varying the unknown. This leads to a perfectly valid
> set of "if [value1] then [result1]" results.
> - BUT that's too complex for a soundbite culture, so only the
> first figure gets reported as a headline conclusion.
> - Now, a future practitioner has NO DATA to validate this part
> of the model, but has the first paper as a reference to cite. The
> assumption is peripheral to the study, so the 'headline' figure is
> simply used without question.
> - Over time it is much-cited because nobody wants to get involved
> in something that cannot be verified. The first researcher's still
> totally untested working hypothesis becomes common knowledge, and
> 'obviously correct' because everyone uses it.
Riiiight. Well, that's what I am afraid of, altough that scenario sounds
all too realistic.
Well, I've come to the conclusion (and my new boss agrees) that we can
(and will) use (read: "shamelessly manipulate") server log stats to help
justify any direction we decide to take with our web presence. Frankly,
it's not like we are going to be making such huge mistakes or life and
death decisions based on server log stats, so a smidge of data
manipluation in our favor isn't too much of a problem. A lot of the
marketing, user interface, and design decisions to be made for the web are
often common-sensical[1] anyways.
But I guess an important point is that server log statistics are only one
part of a complex whole when trying to make decisions about one's web
presence or infrastructure.
Allrighty, all, thanks for the information! This was a helpful Usenet
dialog.
Later...
[1] Not that "common" sense is all that common.
--
JDS | jeffrey@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|