Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus • Hacker News Board

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#51

Post by sesqu » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 10:07 PM UTC

JadeNB wrote: post #34

ayrnieu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were true that stupid people prefer X, then yes: your preference for X would suggest that you were stupid. Preferring X, however, wouldn't _make_ you stupid if you weren't, just as your IQ won't leak out to 'fill the vacuum' were you to attend a Stupidity Convention. It's just statistics; it's not black magic. Assertions about groups are not assertions about individuals, so don't just treat one as the other. >…

> If it were true that stupid people prefer X, then yes: your preference for X would suggest that you were stupid. This is not correct. Stupid people prefer eating over starving, but a preference for eating does not suggest that you are stupid.

Sure it does. And since most smart people prefer eating over starving as well, that preference also suggests that you are smart. If you combine these suggestions with an assertion of excluded third, you can say that a preference for eating over starving implies a qualifiable intelligence.

That is to say, suggestion is not implication. I can reasonably suggest that you are stupid without it being the most reasonable suggestion.

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#52

Post by sukuriant » Wed, Aug 03, 2011, 11:57 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #3

So the good news is that the use of Internet Explorer is not strongly correlated with IQ. The bad news is that falling for hoaxes is...

[Citation Needed]

How is falling for elaborate hoaxes correlated to IQ?

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#53

Post by yuhong » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 3:53 AM UTC

ZoFreX wrote: post #8

Even if it wasn't a hoax, it's still fairly meaningless. It doesn't seem unlikely that more intelligent users would be more likely to look for other options rather than using the OS-provided default. For the sake of illustration lets simplify: Users with an IQ over 100 look for alternatives, below 100 and they do not. Even if 80% of the higher IQ users ultimately choose Internet Explorer (which would indicate that it…

Yep, I think it has been common knowledge for a while now, and studies that are not perfect can still confirm a general trend.

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#54

Post by sigil » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 6:27 AM UTC

retube wrote: post #30

imurray wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone get the original text? It is a bit annoying how the BBC non-transparently correct their articles. The old version is cached here: http://www.webcitation.org/60evsCAry

We run a web content monitoring service, every media organisation changes their articles as they get new info. No reference is ever made to these changes. It's actually really interesting seeing how stories get updated.

Watched your intro video. That seems like a pretty useful service. For the diffs, do you actually convert block elements to text and run the diff(1) algorithm, or do you compare element trees directly? I imagine either way the comparison is fuzzy / heuristic.

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#55

Post by sigil » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 6:44 AM UTC

m0tive wrote: post #33

retube wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We run a web content monitoring service, every media organisation changes their articles as they get new info. No reference is ever made to these changes. It's actually really interesting seeing how stories get updated.

It seems that articles on the Guardian[1] have got an "Article history" which list when the article was changed. Saddly they don't tell you how the article was changed. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk

Yet another instance where, someday, people will discover and embrace diff. The legal and tax codes are another. Reading through legislation on thomas.gov is like reading through a pile of bad patches with no unified diff context.

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#56

Post by simplycomplex » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #47

simplycomplex wrote: post #19

If it was true, then IE could be the most user friendly browser because even users with lower IQ could use that.

You base your statement on the premise lower IQ people use IE correctly. Considering the volume of malware that infects Windows boxes through IE, I'd assume the opposite.

You can't say, an application is not user friendly because it has got many security holes.

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#57

Post by retube » Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 9:01 AM UTC

sigil wrote: post #54

retube wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We run a web content monitoring service, every media organisation changes their articles as they get new info. No reference is ever made to these changes. It's actually really interesting seeing how stories get updated.

Watched your intro video. That seems like a pretty useful service. For the diffs, do you actually convert block elements to text and run the diff(1) algorithm, or do you compare element trees directly? I imagine either way the comparison is fuzzy / heuristic.

We compare element trees directly. It would be easier to extract the text and just do a regular text diff, but this loss of element/tree info means you can't reconstruct html versions of the page with differences highlighted, which for us is an important feature.

Re: Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus

#58

Post by retube » Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 9:04 AM UTC

iamdave wrote: post #32

retube wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We run a web content monitoring service, every media organisation changes their articles as they get new info. No reference is ever made to these changes. It's actually really interesting seeing how stories get updated.

I'm sorry, but there's a difference between changing your article for updates and editor required corrections, and changing your article to look as if you never bit the bullet. BBC did exactly the latter, they didn't put an "Update: It has been determined this was a hoax" or "Please forgive our error, we have made a mistake..." anything. Reading the cached article, and then going back to the original, I think it is f…

You're right, and I agree with you. But yes we've seen stories get changed considerably with no reference to the update. Unfortunately retroactive continuity seems to be pretty much the norm. From a publishers perspective, that's the beauty of the web: unlike print you can change your spin at any time.