4 ms·
But should those assumptions really be based on angry tweets from someone with a colossal vested interest?
by stochastic_monk 9y ago
But should those assumptions really be based on angry tweets from someone with a colossal vested interest?
- makomk 9y agoUber's complaint was that he assumed that when the questionnaire asked about the hours per week people worked across all on-demand services, their answer only included the hours they worked driving for companies like Uber, but that for the next question about money earned across all on-demand services their answer was their total income and should be multiplied by the percentage of their total income that came from driving given in a later question to get their Uber income. Those assumptions are basically incompatible with each other. See https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/an-analysis-of-ceeprs-paper-on-the-economics-of-ride-hailing-1c8bfbf1081d https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/an-analysis-of-ceeprs...
- stochastic_monk 9y agoIt's quite clear that the survey was flawed. However, I'd rather consider all responses tainted and require re-surveying rather than trying to account for it post hoc.
- dekhn 9y agoIf somebody with a colossal vested interest makes an angry tweet that also happens to point out the study author made basic errors (that's what this is about: the author of the study likely made invalidating errors; no amount of changing assumptions is going to fix that).
- luispedrocoelho 9y agoThe reply in the uber blog is less "angry tweet" than "good peer review": it points to a very specific methodological weakness which has bearing on the final conclusions.