5 ms·

Interesting but it would be nice if the author would, you know, write up his/her own detailed analysis with replication steps and post on arxiv or something.

defertoreptar 7y ago
I got the feeling this was more of a case of "I did all this work for myself. Nothing useful came up, so here's what I found." The author may be ok with spending an hour sharing the findings, but doesn't want to spend more time than that.
- DennisP 7y ago
  Which is mildly interesting, but not something other people should use for investment decisions.
- guitarbill 7y ago
  Maybe he could work with someone else to get it to a publication stage? It's super interesting, and combats a well-known problem that you get a lot more out of publishing positive cases (we found a correlation) vs negative cases (we found no correlation), although they're both valuable knowledge. Look, I know writing stuff up sucks. But it could be a great opportunity to learn a lot of things from a very knowledgable person. With the right prof, it could be a great undergrad project.
- michaelbuckbee 7y ago
  Which honestly feels like a reasonable position. Though the untrusting, conspiracy-minded part of my brain wonders if I did review 130 different research papers and found 1 that worked if I'd keep it a secret and just tell the world that they were all crap.
- throwawaywego 7y ago
  I use the "everything is at least 10x greater on the internet" rule.
- numakerg 7y ago
  >Nothing useful came up, Except plenty useful came up. "Literally every single paper was either p-hacked, overfit, or a subsample of favourable data was selected" out of 130+ is a significant result. The media would jump on this, and they just might even without any proof of work.
  - defertoreptar 7y ago
    I was referring to the word "useful" within the context of the author's hypothetical goal, not the parent poster's (i.e. a strategy useful for making money opposed to sharing knowledge).

defertoreptar 7y ago

I got the feeling this was more of a case of "I did all this work for myself. Nothing useful came up, so here's what I found." The author may be ok with spending an hour sharing the findings, but doesn't want to spend more time than that.

DennisP 7y ago
Which is mildly interesting, but not something other people should use for investment decisions.
guitarbill 7y ago
Maybe he could work with someone else to get it to a publication stage? It's super interesting, and combats a well-known problem that you get a lot more out of publishing positive cases (we found a correlation) vs negative cases (we found no correlation), although they're both valuable knowledge. Look, I know writing stuff up sucks. But it could be a great opportunity to learn a lot of things from a very knowledgable person. With the right prof, it could be a great undergrad project.
michaelbuckbee 7y ago
Which honestly feels like a reasonable position. Though the untrusting, conspiracy-minded part of my brain wonders if I did review 130 different research papers and found 1 that worked if I'd keep it a secret and just tell the world that they were all crap.
throwawaywego 7y ago
I use the "everything is at least 10x greater on the internet" rule.
numakerg 7y ago
>Nothing useful came up, Except plenty useful came up. "Literally every single paper was either p-hacked, overfit, or a subsample of favourable data was selected" out of 130+ is a significant result. The media would jump on this, and they just might even without any proof of work.
- defertoreptar 7y ago
  I was referring to the word "useful" within the context of the author's hypothetical goal, not the parent poster's (i.e. a strategy useful for making money opposed to sharing knowledge).