10 ms·
So do they say. I am reminded of Google Flu Trends [0]. They likely also did similar "verification" and it didn't work. > The initial Google paper stated that
by mnau 2y ago
So do they say. I am reminded of Google Flu Trends [0]. They likely also did similar "verification" and it didn't work.
> The initial Google paper stated that the Google Flu Trends predictions were 97% accurate comparing with CDC data.[4] However subsequent reports asserted that Google Flu Trends' predictions have been very inaccurate, especially in two high-profile cases. Google Flu Trends failed to predict the 2009 spring pandemic[12] and over the interval 2011–2013 it consistently overestimated relative flu incidence,
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Flu_Trends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Flu_Trends
- rcpt 2y agoDisclaimer I work at Google. One of the difficulties with using user data to understand society is that the company isn't a static entity. Engineers are always changing their algorithms for purposes that have nothing to do with the things you're trying to observe. For Google Flu Trends specifically here's a great paper https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/0314policyforumff.pdf https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/0314policyforumf...
- genewitch 2y ago2013 was a bad year for h1n1 or whatever it was. It killed my sister while she was vacationing back east. I think it was aggressive but it was quite cold that winter and that may have completely screwed with their data/interpretation at that time. For instance, it snowed 5 times and stuck in Central Louisiana that winter (continuing into frebruary/march, whateer.. It's been colder since, but that year was a real outlier (in my experience on earth, this is my supposition, i have been trying to figure this out for 11 years)