3 ms·
I'd add to your definition and include anytime an author adds a buzzword that is irrelevant or not mentioned in the article. Then OP's claim that this is clickb
by soared 9y ago
I'd add to your definition and include anytime an author adds a buzzword that is irrelevant or not mentioned in the article. Then OP's claim that this is clickbait would be true - its for statistics and not big data.
So "How to Call B.S. On Big Data: A Practical Guide" is clickbait, but "How to Call B.S. On Statistical Claims: A Practical Guide" is not.
- cwyers 9y agoI disagree with this definition, and even if I did agree I think this doesn't describe the article. As just one example: > Beware of Big Data hubris. TheGoogle Flu Trends project, which claimed, with much fanfare, to anticipate seasonal flu outbreaks by tracking user searches for flu-related terms, proved to be a less reliable predictor of outbreaks than a simple model of local temperatures. (One problem was that Google’s algorithm was hoodwinked by meaningless correlations—between flu outbreaks and high-school basketball seasons, for example, both of which occur in winter.) Like all data-based claims, if an algorithm’s abilities sound too good to be true, they probably are. If that's not a claim about Big Data, then what is?