Big news

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by SFJoe:
Asimov reflects.

This is well put:

"In one sense, Mr. Parker and other like-minded critics planted the seeds of their own obsolescence. The 100-point scale and the vocabulary of tasting notes — those brief wine descriptions that break down what’s in the glass to a series of aromas and flavors — are meaningful only until people start to develop a sense of their own taste. Wine-lovers discovered that these were merely intermediate tools, and that with confidence and ease comes a curiosity that goes beyond what’s in the glass."

 

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by SteveTimko:
It captures the audience who are looking for a specific topic as opposed to someone who comes to a website every day and is too cheap to pay for a subscription.

But why is the random searcher a more valid reader than the avid cheapskate? Their money is of equal value.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
But why is the random searcher a more valid reader than the avid cheapskate? Their money is of equal value.

The Googler isn't a fanboy so the usual arsenal of "buy me!" tactics hasn't been given a proper chance to work yet.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

originally posted by SFJoe:
Asimov reflects.

This is well put:

"In one sense, Mr. Parker and other like-minded critics planted the seeds of their own obsolescence. The 100-point scale and the vocabulary of tasting notes — those brief wine descriptions that break down what’s in the glass to a series of aromas and flavors — are meaningful only until people start to develop a sense of their own taste. Wine-lovers discovered that these were merely intermediate tools, and that with confidence and ease comes a curiosity that goes beyond what’s in the glass."

Perdon my Engleesh, but I was wondering why hyphenated wine-lovers, assuming (as I am wont since it's him & the NYT) that he is right and I am wrong.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

originally posted by SFJoe:
Asimov reflects.

This is well put:

"In one sense, Mr. Parker and other like-minded critics planted the seeds of their own obsolescence. The 100-point scale and the vocabulary of tasting notes — those brief wine descriptions that break down what’s in the glass to a series of aromas and flavors — are meaningful only until people start to develop a sense of their own taste. Wine-lovers discovered that these were merely intermediate tools, and that with confidence and ease comes a curiosity that goes beyond what’s in the glass."

Alas, about tasting notes, more aspirational than true, I find. Although one finds more metaphorical reach on this bored sometimes, the designation of taste sensations according to coded words masquerading as direct references, not to mention, as in this article, the actionable misuse of the word "hedonistic," continue apace.

 

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

originally posted by SFJoe:
Asimov reflects.

This is well put:

"In one sense, Mr. Parker and other like-minded critics planted the seeds of their own obsolescence. The 100-point scale and the vocabulary of tasting notes — those brief wine descriptions that break down what’s in the glass to a series of aromas and flavors — are meaningful only until people start to develop a sense of their own taste. Wine-lovers discovered that these were merely intermediate tools, and that with confidence and ease comes a curiosity that goes beyond what’s in the glass."

Perdon my Engleesh, but I was wondering why hyphenated wine-lovers, assuming (as I am wont since it's him & the NYT) that he is right and I am wrong.

I think he's breaking out in punctuational hives after reading Lettie Teague's "editor in chief," "Chateauneuf du Pape," and the like.

 

[Steve Guattery]

originally posted by SteveTimko:

The term is porous wall, meaning it shuts some out but not everyone.

Do you know if there's any financial arrangement between Google and WSJ? E.g., some shared ad revenue?

Eventually clicks from Google searches will likely be going away.

Why?

 

[Sharon Bowman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Perdon my Engleesh, but I was wondering why hyphenated wine-lovers, assuming (as I am wont since it's him & the NYT) that he is right and I am wrong.

Also, the NYT is much less persnickety on blog posts, which is what that is.

I think we should all be more German* and say "Winelovers."

*Except in our grape varieties.

 

[Kay Bixler]

originally posted by SFJoe:
Asimov reflects.

Nice eulogy.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

Recently read an interview with Chomsky in which he did not agree that careful watching of the data will generate scientific results.

...ducking the flying blubber...

when you have a mouthful already, there's not much dodging to do.

fb.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

You'll need a big N. Tried to talk Eric Levine into this, he didn't bite.

Well, this would get you somewhere, but I doubt it's an interesting destination. From CT??? Talk about a dilute sample.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, this is the only place where one could expect to gather the amount of data you need, and you'll need a good bit.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by VLM:
Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

Recently read an interview with Chomsky in which he did not agree that careful watching of the data will generate scientific results.

...ducking the flying blubber...

I don't get this.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

You'll need a big N. Tried to talk Eric Levine into this, he didn't bite.

Well, this would get you somewhere, but I doubt it's an interesting destination. From CT??? Talk about a dilute sample.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, this is the only place where one could expect to gather the amount of data you need, and you'll need a good bit.

you can lose a lot of signal when you heavily dilute your study population.

but you do get the comfort of big numbers.

 

[Rahsaan]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

You'll need a big N. Tried to talk Eric Levine into this, he didn't bite.

Well, this would get you somewhere, but I doubt it's an interesting destination. From CT??? Talk about a dilute sample.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, this is the only place where one could expect to gather the amount of data you need, and you'll need a good bit.

Web scraping programs could get you a broader base, but you'd probably have to give up some of the fine-grained detail.

Personally, I'm waiting until every newborn gets a chip inserted in his/her brain and we can analyze the data on a whole range of interesting questions.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Rahsaan:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

You'll need a big N. Tried to talk Eric Levine into this, he didn't bite.

Well, this would get you somewhere, but I doubt it's an interesting destination. From CT??? Talk about a dilute sample.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, this is the only place where one could expect to gather the amount of data you need, and you'll need a good bit.

Web scraping programs could get you a broader base, but you'd probably have to give up some of the fine-grained detail.

Personally, I'm waiting until every newborn gets a chip inserted in his/her brain and we can analyze the data on a whole range of interesting questions.

I can't wait.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by VLM:

Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

You'll need a big N. Tried to talk Eric Levine into this, he didn't bite.

Well, this would get you somewhere, but I doubt it's an interesting destination. From CT??? Talk about a dilute sample.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, this is the only place where one could expect to gather the amount of data you need, and you'll need a good bit.

you can lose a lot of signal when you heavily dilute your study population.

but you do get the comfort of big numbers.

given the size of CT, you could do some pruning to improve the scale, but the most important thing is the development of the items.

 

[SFJoe]

I puzzle why I would want the most important vector over a population that includes you and 50 pinheads, instead of just asking you.

 

[SFJoe]

Another way to put it--in my world, if you run a trial of a therapy in 100 patients with a disease, but you throw in 100 more who don't have it, it can be very hard to figure out if it works.

The disease in this case being "interesting opinions about wine."

 

[Rahsaan]

In all fairness, you and Nathan seem to be going after two different things.

"Interesting opinions about wine" is not the same thing as "public reaction to wines." And one could probably make a lot more money selling predictive models of the latter as opposed to the former.

Which is what the WA is all about anyway, no? I never understood why it was supposed to be important for 'us'.

 

[SFJoe]

My impression has been that Nathan seeks Truth.

But you are right, surely there is more cash to be made on the newbie front.