21–30 of 150 posts
Meaning: people that can't type "facebook.com" on the address bar and type it into google then click?
So... based on that, we can assume people are getting more familiar with the internet maybe?
I'm also curious why Princeton's search volume seems to have declined. Obviously it doesn't mean Princeton is going to disappear, but what does it mean? Could be statistically insignificant, perhaps.
EDIT: Here are some comparisons:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F05zl0%2C%20%2F...
Interesting how the initial spread seems to narrow.
I hope this becomes a bigger story than the original. I can't tell you how many times someone has thrown a junk science article in my face, thinking that the issue in question was now settled. A survey with a small sample size, outsized extrapolations and numbers that don't match the accompanying conjecture. There should be consequences for the people who publish these things. People have a tendency to believe anythi…
Many who are published deserve obscurity. And some who have obscurity deserve more funding. Can you give it to them?
Do not be so eager to deal out censorship; for even institutional review boards cannot see all ends.
What drove Cannarella and Spechler, two mechanical engineering Ph.D. students, to prerelease a paper about network theory and epidemiology, without coauthoring/consulting with epidemiologists or people experienced in viral communications theories, is beyond me. But the title "Debunking Princeton" seems to suggest this should be considered representative of all of the quality of research Princeton outputs, which is ce…
It should be obvious that the title itself is part of the self-parody. The whole thing is a giant exercise in reductio ad absurdum. In fact, the 'joke' only works based on Princeton's reputation as an excellent university, if that makes you feel any better.
[Full disclosure: I am a facebook employee]
Statistics is descriptive--it's not predictive. It tells you about the data you have. It doesn't tell you why the systems produced that data, and whether they might produce very different data under different conditions.
So, if this all snark, does that mean there's no "strong correlation between the undergraduate enrollment of an institution and its Google Trends index"? Because that would be a pretty interesting correlation. I'm also curious why Princeton's search volume seems to have declined. Obviously it doesn't mean Princeton is going to disappear, but what does it mean? Could be statistically insignificant, perhaps. EDIT: Here…
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=harvard%2C%20princeto...
Google trends represents share of search volume, not absolute volume [1]. As the higher education bubble continues to grow, ivy league schools have not grown as fast as other schools, and there are new schools being created as well. All of this activity contributes to Princeton's (for example) share of search decrease within their sector, and overall.
[1]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Trends