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

Debunking Princeton

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: Debunking Princeton

#41

Post by deevus »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #26
hooande wrote: post #13

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…

" There should be consequences for the people who publish these things. " 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.

Yes, Professor Gandalf.

Re: Debunking Princeton

#42

Post by ajju »

yuvadam wrote: post #36

Hey, Facebook, wanna prove Princeton wrong? How about publishing actual metrics proving that user engagement is at an all-time high? (Oh, you don't have metrics to prove that? Is that because users are jumping ship?)

You mean the actual metrics linked to in the 2nd sentence of the post? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101235005815241&se...

(Oh, you missed that? Is that because you didn't actually read the post?)

Re: Debunking Princeton

#43

Post by elwell »

I wonder if this article would exist if the first one had been by Harvard instead of Princeton (given that Harvard was the origin of Facebook).

Re: Debunking Princeton

#46

Post by elwell »

ultimatedelman wrote: post #37
joelgrus wrote: post #8

This is pretty funny, although they ruined it with their "HEY GUYS THIS WAS A JOKE" at the end.

agreed, but they have to put that in there to cover their asses in case some moron doesn't get it and gets offended.

agreed, but they wouldn't have done that when they were still a startup.

Re: Debunking Princeton

#47

Post by elwell »

augustocallejas wrote: post #4

One of the top comments on that page is that they loved the tone of article. Personally I hate sarcastic responses (no matter how correct you are), which sound very unprofessional. I hope to see less of these types of responses in the future.

/s

Re: Debunking Princeton

#49

Post by [deleted] »

deevus wrote: post #41
throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" There should be consequences for the people who publish these things. " 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.

Yes, Professor Gandalf.

[deleted]

Re: Debunking Princeton

#50

Post by RBerenguel »

ajju wrote: post #42
yuvadam wrote: post #36

Hey, Facebook, wanna prove Princeton wrong? How about publishing actual metrics proving that user engagement is at an all-time high? (Oh, you don't have metrics to prove that? Is that because users are jumping ship?)

You mean the actual metrics linked to in the 2nd sentence of the post? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101235005815241&se... (Oh, you missed that? Is that because you didn't actually read the post?)

Personally I didn't even check what the FB link was since it was clearly a link to a Facebook album. For anyone interested in data munching, a graphic is worthless, you need the numbers. And more data, always
Post reply on HN