Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

#101

Post by venomsnake »

danielweber wrote: post #5
Smerity wrote: post #3

I'm glad this was written and has more historical examples than just Brexit. I could imagine a good portion of the questions could be originating from students. If a large political or economic event happens, it's not unlikely for classrooms teachers to task their students to understand what's happening. Search is the obvious first step for that. Even more broadly, and in line with the article, extrapolating from a s…

If you start with the assumption that your enemies are stupid, you won't have much trouble finding the evidence.

That also is a great way to lose a political battle.

What I observe right now after the Brexit vote is the absolute conviction that brexit happened because the fact that it is xenophobic was just not explained clearly enough and the "stupid" brexiter just did not get it.

Re: Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

#102

Post by chimprich »

partiallypro wrote: post #44

Let's face it, the only reason publications turned to Google Trends to show people Googling "What is the EU?" is because it fit the narrative they had out of the gate. I see the good and bad of Brexit (I'd say "remain" has a stronger case if the EU would reform;) yet the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite. Every article I've read treats those who were pro-Brexit as if they…

> the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite

How can you possibly use "spite" as a justification to make decisions about the next few decades of our future?

Doing anything out of spite (Google definition: "a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone") is surely a bad idea for doing anything, let alone a decision of this magnitude, which needs careful consideration of the facts, not emotion.

> I honestly can connect more with those that were "Leave" on the E.U. now than in the beginning; simply because the media coverage has come off as so elitist.

"Elitist", being a request to listen to the experts, presumably; Nobel prize winning economists, the IMF, banks, businesses, the US government, the unions, major businesses, all the sane UK political parties, and so on. Yes, elitism is terrible. How could it have been presented differently to save your feelings?

What is infuriating is that many (most?) people voted according to emotion rather than considering the evidence.

Re: Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

#103

Post by dhimes »

atarian wrote: post #15

I honestly took the WP article at face value and told a coworker that Brexit voters were regretting their decision based on conclusions drawn from Google trends. I feel like one of those ants that have been infected by the mind control fungus, helplessly infecting others with misinformation designed for an agenda.

Have you ever googled "What is X" when you knew what "X" was? Neither have I. This article, while a nice caution, doesn't really dismiss the issue. It's not about "oh I look up lots of stuff," it's about lots of people looking up lots of stuff and coincidently with world events a lot of us are looking up this thing having to do with world events.

I still don't know who Harriet Tubman is. I haven't googled her yet. I'll probably duck duck go her anyway...but that's a different story.

Re: Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

#105

Post by wildmusings »

msie wrote: post #95
wildmusings wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't always get easy choices but I refuse to abdicate my responsibility to make the best choice for my country, even if it means swallowing some of my reservations. The other side has nominated an unprincipled criminal who has shown utter contempt for accountability in the course of her public service. Not to mention that I share about 0-5% of her policy views. Aside from the whole judge debacle, which I concede…

> The other side has nominated an unprincipled criminal who has shown utter contempt for accountability in the course of her public service. This is really naive. Both sides are hardly saints. This sounds like a talking point from the GOP or Fox News. So, after the Leavers won the #Brexit vote, we hear of these racist attacks on Polish immigrants by idiots emboldened by the vote result. I would not be surprised to se…

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-californ... . It of course opens with the weasely "fair" opening sentence: "Protesters and supporters of Donald Trump clashed in the streets of San Jose, California, Thursday night after the presumptive GOP nominee held a rally." But the violence was exclusively in one direction, violent anti-Trump mobs attacking peaceful Trump supporters while waving Mexican flags and burning American ones. The biggest provocation from a Trump supporter was apparently waving the middle finger. A mob cornered her and threw eggs at her face. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/trump-supporter-... At least she didn't have a bloodied face and need to be taken away in an ambulance, like some Trump supporters have. This has been playing out all over the US.

If you vote based on who has the most violent supporters, then you'd be crazy to cast your ballot for a left-winger in any Western country. There's a contingent of far-left protesters in the West that just cause mayhem at any major event, like party conventions, G8 summits, WTO summits, Davos, etc. You barely hear about it because it's basically background-noise to Western society at this point. I don't think it's fair to use this as a shot against everyone on the left, unless they're trying to accuse conservatives of violence, or unless they're purposefully tolerating or equivocating about the violence, like the mayor of San Jose did.

Re: Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

#107

Post by potatoman2 »

chimprich wrote: post #102
partiallypro wrote: post #44

Let's face it, the only reason publications turned to Google Trends to show people Googling "What is the EU?" is because it fit the narrative they had out of the gate. I see the good and bad of Brexit (I'd say "remain" has a stronger case if the EU would reform;) yet the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite. Every article I've read treats those who were pro-Brexit as if they…

> the more I read from the media, the more I've leaned pro-Brexit, just out of spite How can you possibly use "spite" as a justification to make decisions about the next few decades of our future? Doing anything out of spite (Google definition: "a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone") is surely a bad idea for doing anything, let alone a decision of this magnitude, which needs careful consideration of the facts,…

I think you're discounting the spite vote.

Re: Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

#108

Post by mcbits »

jpeterman wrote: post #42
CydeWeys wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget students even, I'm an adult with a compulsive information-seeking habit, as I suspect a lot of other HN readers are. I know who Harriet Tubman is, but I don't know all there is to know about her, so on the date that her $20 bill debut was announced I Googled her and read parts of her Wikipedia article, the same way I am constantly doing for all sorts of current event topics. How can wanting to learn more possi…

The only really valid part of the linked article is the point about how you can't make sweeping generalizations based on a very small sample size and a (relatively) small trend. Concluding that people probably know what the EU is while searching very specifically using the phrase "What is the EU" is no more accurate or truthful than concluding that they don't know what the EU is. The author says at one point, "perhap…

True, the article gives no basis to conclude that people searching "what is the EU" already know what it is, but it seems like a fair default position. I might search "history of the EU" or "Mitt Romney bio" to get a certain kind of content outside of current events and gossip. I could also see other people with similar (limited, but much greater than 0) knowledge searching "what is the EU" or "who is Mitt Romney" for exactly the same reasons.

The less clueless-sounding queries have spikes on Google Trends that appear very correlated with the "who is"/"what is" spikes, for what it's worth.

Re: Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends

#109

Post by venomsnake »

bjacobel wrote: post #50
wildmusings wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The battle lines have shifted. It's now nationalism vs. globalism, not conservative vs. liberal. It turns out that the elite, while split between conservatism and liberalism, is firmly in the globalist camp. The people tend to go the other way, especially once the hollow veneer of political correctness is shattered (terrorist attacks, migrant crises, and economic downturns can do that). You're seeing it in Britain, w…

"We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time soon.

I love my country[1] Europe which is secular, hedonistic, sexually liberated and with gender equality. I want to preserve it that way.

[1] I do think of it that way.

Post reply on HN