5 ms·

> "Shared exclusively with The Globe and Mail" Publish the actual paper or this is just vaporware nonsense. This is a non-peer-reviewed paper with zero credibi

> "Shared exclusively with The Globe and Mail" Publish the actual paper or this is just vaporware nonsense. This is a non-peer-reviewed paper with zero credibility, thats been seen by a small handful of people. They could literally write a paper about the moon being made of cheese and have the same credibility. They dont even make the source material available in their article. I dont want to sound overly critical, this looks like a legit finding that matches up with my experience of the housing market, but Im completely fed up with people publishing their "findings" without reporting where the data came from and how they got to their conclusions. Until they publish the paper, this should be dismissed out of hand. There's such a long history of people completely messing up their statistical methodology that you cant believe anything until you see the actual numbers/methods.

itsaidpens 7y ago
The data they received is a competitive advantage and they are not under any obligation to publish it. You don't need to, or are allowed to, extend your demands of peer-reviewed academia to modern online journalism. Stop whining, and address the claims of the article.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  This is why they call it fake news.
  - itsaidpens 7y ago
    I just hate that pedantic comments like the original poster are the most upvoted on HN. The most upvoted comment on most articles isn't addressing the topic; it's some sort of ridiculous analysis or criticism of process, or an embedded piece of javascript, or whatever.
    - chongli 7y ago
      I happen to appreciate this style of comment on HN. We live in a frenzy of sensationalism. Why can't we have a devil's advocate to remind us of the most common, basic mistakes? It's like a compiler that catches null-pointer errors for us.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Veen 7y ago
  But surely without the original data, it's impossible to judge the accuracy of the report. How can one address the claims of the article without any idea whether its conclusions are justified? People have a justified skepticism when it comes to online reporting: it is not unusual for media outlets to take a skewed, partial, or plain incorrect view of a piece of research.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Stop whining, and address the claims of the article. How can you possibly do that when you can't see the raw data and methodology yourself?
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and posting unsubstantive comments, and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rchaud 7y ago
It's not unusual for a publication to have early access to research if they're writing a detailed piece about it. The lead author has said that the paper will be available for download tomorrow: https://twitter.com/dwachsmuth/status/1141665262065860608 https://twitter.com/dwachsmuth/status/1141665262065860608 The G&M article says it's a peer-reviewed study and fully funded by the federal government, so the likelihood of moon cheese methodology is low.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  The number of untrue conspiracy theories promulgated by the mainstream media is high enough that I like reading things for myself instead of getting the pre-digested version.
- chabons 7y ago
  The author also published a short summary of the findings in a link on his twitter as well, which includes a GitHub link to some of the code used for the analysis and figure generation (no data though). It's worth a read.
- wedn3sday 7y ago
  One of my favorite sayings is, "trust in Allah, but tie up your camel." The author seems legit, and the article is well written, but unless we can check the work and see the numbers its much better to assume moon-cheese then to just blindly trust whatever you're being told.
bongobongo 7y ago
RTFA. You are getting basic facts wrong. >In the past, Prof. Wachsmuth has done consulting work and produced reports for governments, and civic and business groups, including a hotel-industry association. This study, which has been peer reviewed, was funded solely by the federal government, however.
- wedn3sday 7y ago
  How can the two statements, "Shared exclusively with" and "has been peer reviewed" both be true? Just saying something has been reviewed doesnt mean anything, there's no citation or even the name of the Paper or journal it was published in.
  - bongobongo 7y ago
    It's a term of art in journalism, it has nothing to do with anything related to the circumstances behind the study or its release
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kadendogthing 7y ago
>Publish the actual paper or this is just vaporware nonsense. Even without the data it's not non-sense. It's a pretty rational hypothesis. Being rational definitely doesn't make something right, but it's about as far away from non-sense as you can get.
gerbilly 7y ago
> This is a non-peer-reviewed paper with zero credibility... All right, all right, perhaps we can we have some respect for other professions around here? You know the human world isn't the robot world, it's not built on 'data' it's built on relationships, agreements and good faith.

itsaidpens 7y ago

The data they received is a competitive advantage and they are not under any obligation to publish it. You don't need to, or are allowed to, extend your demands of peer-reviewed academia to modern online journalism. Stop whining, and address the claims of the article.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
This is why they call it fake news.
- itsaidpens 7y ago
  I just hate that pedantic comments like the original poster are the most upvoted on HN. The most upvoted comment on most articles isn't addressing the topic; it's some sort of ridiculous analysis or criticism of process, or an embedded piece of javascript, or whatever.
  - chongli 7y ago
    I happen to appreciate this style of comment on HN. We live in a frenzy of sensationalism. Why can't we have a devil's advocate to remind us of the most common, basic mistakes? It's like a compiler that catches null-pointer errors for us.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Veen 7y ago
But surely without the original data, it's impossible to judge the accuracy of the report. How can one address the claims of the article without any idea whether its conclusions are justified? People have a justified skepticism when it comes to online reporting: it is not unusual for media outlets to take a skewed, partial, or plain incorrect view of a piece of research.
chrisseaton 7y ago
> Stop whining, and address the claims of the article. How can you possibly do that when you can't see the raw data and methodology yourself?
dang 7y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and posting unsubstantive comments, and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rchaud 7y ago

It's not unusual for a publication to have early access to research if they're writing a detailed piece about it. The lead author has said that the paper will be available for download tomorrow: https://twitter.com/dwachsmuth/status/1141665262065860608 https://twitter.com/dwachsmuth/status/1141665262065860608 The G&M article says it's a peer-reviewed study and fully funded by the federal government, so the likelihood of moon cheese methodology is low.

paulddraper 7y ago
The number of untrue conspiracy theories promulgated by the mainstream media is high enough that I like reading things for myself instead of getting the pre-digested version.
chabons 7y ago
The author also published a short summary of the findings in a link on his twitter as well, which includes a GitHub link to some of the code used for the analysis and figure generation (no data though). It's worth a read.
wedn3sday 7y ago
One of my favorite sayings is, "trust in Allah, but tie up your camel." The author seems legit, and the article is well written, but unless we can check the work and see the numbers its much better to assume moon-cheese then to just blindly trust whatever you're being told.

bongobongo 7y ago

RTFA. You are getting basic facts wrong. >In the past, Prof. Wachsmuth has done consulting work and produced reports for governments, and civic and business groups, including a hotel-industry association. This study, which has been peer reviewed, was funded solely by the federal government, however.

wedn3sday 7y ago
How can the two statements, "Shared exclusively with" and "has been peer reviewed" both be true? Just saying something has been reviewed doesnt mean anything, there's no citation or even the name of the Paper or journal it was published in.
- bongobongo 7y ago
  It's a term of art in journalism, it has nothing to do with anything related to the circumstances behind the study or its release

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kadendogthing 7y ago

>Publish the actual paper or this is just vaporware nonsense. Even without the data it's not non-sense. It's a pretty rational hypothesis. Being rational definitely doesn't make something right, but it's about as far away from non-sense as you can get.

gerbilly 7y ago

> This is a non-peer-reviewed paper with zero credibility... All right, all right, perhaps we can we have some respect for other professions around here? You know the human world isn't the robot world, it's not built on 'data' it's built on relationships, agreements and good faith.