51–60 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's been given the authority to do a lot of hiring, so I would honestly be surprised, if he didn't go on to hire some d3.js boffins.
Actually, Mike Bostock (creator of d3) has been employed by the Times for awhile now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree more. My respect for the NYT is shaky and them letting Nate Silver leave while keeping the vacuous talking heads you named is just shameful.
It sounds like they made Nate an incredible offer and were willing to meet any of his demands. It sounds like they would have done anything to keep him. Their offer to him was already grating to many others at the Times, I imagine. They offered him quite the little staff, and expansion into any topic he wanted. I don't think his decision to leave was about their offer, that, or ESPN/ABC just dreamed bigger and gave h…
Actually Krugman is also a poor fit. I wish he'd walk away and just keep doing what he does independently. At least then I wouldn't have to go into privacy mode to read his articles.
On the data journalism mailing list, we've had a small discussion about how Nate could be replaced by any of the other data-minded journalists...it's not because his work was simple, but Silver himself has said that his analysis is straightforward and the math is accessible...the difference is that Silver gives a damn about context and analysis In a methodological way. He definitely brings in good writing talents and…
Also, you're probably right, there are at least three other prominent electoral college forecasters who write well, were as accurate as Nate, and who could possibly be contracted to provide the same analysis and commentary: Andrew Tannenbaum [1], Drew Linzer [2], and Sam Wang [3].
Unlike Nate, forecasting is not their primary career, but it's clearly a labor of love for them and who knows what could be worked out with the right offer. If I were in charge at the NYT I'd be starting up conversations with these and any others doing similar work, stat.
Seriously, it may not have been about money or fit. If someone came along and said that you could continue to code software and get paid to do it, but didn't have to work for CrushSoul, Inc., anymore AND it was in something you found insanely fun and interesting, wouldn't you do it?
On the data journalism mailing list, we've had a small discussion about how Nate could be replaced by any of the other data-minded journalists...it's not because his work was simple, but Silver himself has said that his analysis is straightforward and the math is accessible...the difference is that Silver gives a damn about context and analysis In a methodological way. He definitely brings in good writing talents and…
Which mailing list? There seem to be several on this topic. Also, you're probably right, there are at least three other prominent electoral college forecasters who write well, were as accurate as Nate, and who could possibly be contracted to provide the same analysis and commentary: Andrew Tannenbaum [1], Drew Linzer [2], and Sam Wang [3]. Unlike Nate, forecasting is not their primary career, but it's clearly a labor…
http://www.ire.org/resource-center/listservs/subscribe-nicar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which mailing list? There seem to be several on this topic. Also, you're probably right, there are at least three other prominent electoral college forecasters who write well, were as accurate as Nate, and who could possibly be contracted to provide the same analysis and commentary: Andrew Tannenbaum [1], Drew Linzer [2], and Sam Wang [3]. Unlike Nate, forecasting is not their primary career, but it's clearly a labor…
National Institute for Computer Assisted Reporting http://www.ire.org/resource-center/listservs/subscribe-nicar...
I feel like traditional pundits got pissed off because he kept wrecking their narratives. And he upset them further by turning political prognostication into something understandable by common readers -- instead of something only pointy-hatted political wizards could divine with the right amount of eye-of-newt and other secret ingredients. Anyway: The New York Times should've worked harder to keep him. They should fi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Public editor" is basically a particular incarnation of ombudsman. One thing common to ombudsman roles is that they're powerless and routinely ignored. They're the equivalent of "We are taking this seriously.", a meaningless gesture designed to distract and obfuscate. The people who take such roles are simply pawns.
Sorry, but I have to call this out as blanket, misguided and uninformed criticism. I've been a frequent reader of the Times ombudsman in the 10 or so years since it was put in place after the Jayson Blair scandal. Sullivan has been the most incisive, most responsive of all the ombudsmen so far. You're right that the position is toothless...she has no ability to fire people or allocate resources of her own. What she d…
And yet, your comment provides no relevant information I didn't already possess. Shocking that two people with identical knowledge can reach different conclusions, isn't it?
I feel like traditional pundits got pissed off because he kept wrecking their narratives. And he upset them further by turning political prognostication into something understandable by common readers -- instead of something only pointy-hatted political wizards could divine with the right amount of eye-of-newt and other secret ingredients. Anyway: The New York Times should've worked harder to keep him. They should fi…
How did he do that?
If anything, I would argue the opposite, because his model is proprietary and his explanations (presumably deliberately) vague. 538 is awash with numbers but the algorithms used to generate them are the very definition of "eye-of-newt and other secret ingredients".