Using Search Engine Results as Valid Statistics
You can use your desired search engine with any phrase you want and can probably get results from thousands to millions. This is totally meaningless. Many of the results have absolutely nothing to do with the phrase you used and some even claim the opposite.
Valid statistics are akin the the art of lying in the first place. You can prove with statistics both sides of any argument.
Does this new rule apply equally to Conservatives & Liberals? Just askin…for future reference.
106,000,000 results say this blog is not valid 😛
You may find this book interesting:
http://www.pohly.com/books/appliedstatistics.html
It’s By A Really good Friend of mine’s Grandmother:
OLIVE JEAN DUNN, PHD, Professor Emeritus U.C.L.A.
8)
I am not totally sure what the argument is here, but John’s original statement in the blog is correct. The overall number of results found is absolutely meaningless. When you do a search on a word, name, or phrase, you not only get results for what you are actually looking for, but you find the pros, the cons, and then you have those who will use a word in the search to hi-jack the search to direct you to a business or a link connected to that person. The majority of the search results are usually not related to the search in any manner, shape, or form…You may find what you want with a search, but sometimes much sifting through the masses of results is necessary to achieve that.
Let’s all speak some truth here now. Google is geared toward what ever side you favor. It’s quite possible for me to Google a word or phrase and the results would be totally different than what’s his name. If I put in Democrat with a space my suggested phrases become, vs Republicans, for life, Wisconsin, for education reform. If I put in Republicans with a space the suggested phrases become, vs Democrats, suck, are evil, redefine rape. This however is my all time favorite.
http://tinyurl.com/3kg75wr
Also, I have given blood and donated monies and have never been asked my political affiliation, so that would mean those figures can be skewed easily by dishonest people.
That is true, and very often it is companies or politicians with vested interests that commission surveys and research themselves, then they go about interpreting the facts to fit their theory or whatever aims they have. All designed to make things appear to be very different from what they already are.
This may or may not be related. I got into an argument about a football game that I really had no interest in. A Patriot fan made a statement that the Patriots have owned the Colts, beat the Colts the last 7 times and blew them out last year, beating the colts by 20 points.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2010/11/21/1828622/week-11-nfl-patriots-vs-colts-peyton-manning-comeback-bid-falls-short
The thing is I pulled up the above story. Nevermind that the colts were down 31-28 and within field goal range… But I showed that the Patriots did not win by 20 points.
The argument did not end there. He explained that he meant that the Patriots were up 20 at half time and in the fourth quarter the patriots had pulled their starters…. By this time I was already done talking to this person, probably forever, because he is an IDIOT. So after 30 minutes of constant badgering where he wanted me to admit he was correct. I said, “you probably vote Republican”, at which time he said, “I vote Republican, because Democrats are stupid”
I must remember to get him to participate in our Pay Fantasy league.
Sorry, for the long irrelevant story.