3 ms·
The UI is slick, but why should I trust this black box? The "how does it work" section doesn't even mention * modeling assumptions * training data (if any)
by pton-throw 5y ago
The UI is slick, but why should I trust this black box?
The "how does it work" section doesn't even mention
* modeling assumptions
* training data (if any)
* validation (if any)
Why is this better than, say, giving the 25-75% range around my "best guess" assuming log-normal duration and the variance of prior project completion times? Can you demonstrate that it's better than that?
- diiq 5y agoIt's not better; it's almost exactly that, as detailed in many comments below. I choose slightly different thresholds -- 75% is not very high, you'll be wrong one time in 4 -- but that's the approach. If you're already doing log normal modeling of your estimates, and including sick days, social loafing, etc, then you don't need Vistimo Quotes. Just keep doing what you're doing!
- pton-throw 5y ago> as detailed in many comments below This is something I would buy if I had confidence in the simulator. Why not write a blog or a brief white paper giving some hint of what's going on behind the scenes? Generally speaking, every bit of energy someone spends being cool (good UI) comes at the expense of energy spent being good. Maybe you've done some serious work on the simulator, but I can't tell from your marketing material.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Aeolun 5y ago> every bit of energy someone spends being cool (good UI) comes at the expense of energy spent being good Why would you assume that? If your model is already pretty much perfect, not much more you can spend your time on than presentation.
- pton-throw 5y agoHow do you distinguish a nonsense model from a good model when you don't have a writeup, you don't have validation data, and it is not possible to run cheap experiments? I'm not saying you can't make money selling an RNG with a slick UI, you certainly can.