5 ms·

Yes, but I know dozens of people on LinkedIn. I know one active Google+ user and he's a bit of a Google fanboy to begin with. Why is there the need to respond

Yes, but I know dozens of people on LinkedIn. I know one active Google+ user and he's a bit of a Google fanboy to begin with. Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes? If I give a Google+ growth anecdote, does that invalidate yours? I have no idea why Google+ is being compared to LinkedIn. They have very little overlap. Even among Facebook and Google+ the overlap is limited. Nonetheless Google keeps iterating on the product and it seems to be paying off. The Android Google+ client is now superb, and the content richness seems to be greatly improving, particularly in the tech field. Which is important because the tech field is what generally leads the growth curve.

hyperbovine 14y ago
> Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes? Why, haven't you heard? The plural of anecdote is data! :-)
incongruity 14y ago
Because data can also lie. The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us? Not much at all because it says nothing of intent, much less duration of stay on that page or frequency of use. In the absence of that additional data, anecdotes can be useful to express doubt or confusion about data that seems to not pass the sniff-test. It can be as minimal as "is it just me, or does ... ?" sort of constructions or it can be more formalized to say – "This doesn't fit with my personal observations". The mistake is thinking that anecdotes add up to data – they don't – but put enough of them together and they can be heuristically valuable – and one on its own, in the absence of other real data, is still a completely valid construct for conversational purposes or to challenge (albeit weakly) some over-cooked claim, like what I'm seeing here, with the google+ traffic data. The refutation of such an anecdotal experience with sound evidence doesn't mean the the anecdote was worthless – hardly. It was valuable because it was provocative.
- saraid216 14y ago
  OP: Wrong. Anecdote: Wrong. incongruity: Two wrongs make a right!
  - incongruity 14y ago
    George E.P. Box is quoted as saying: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." I would adapt that and say that all anecdotes are wrong, but some are useful.
    - kingkilr 14y ago
      Surely you have to make an actual argument as to why it's useful though? So far all I've heard is "my friends don't use G+".
      - incongruity 14y ago
        Truth be told, I'm not arguing strongly in support of the original bit of anecdotal evidence. I was more responding to the quote: "Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes?" I feel as though I made my case pretty well for a generalized reason, above. In this particular case, as I said: "The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us? Not much at all because it says nothing of intent, much less duration of stay on that page or frequency of use. I think there's much ado about little data. So, in the face of not all that informative of data, I think a weak bit of anecdotal pushback is wonderful if it gets conversation started.
        saraid216 14y ago
        Conversation is pretty worthless when it's speculation piled on speculation. If that's your thing, then well... okay. I mean... if there's much ado about little data, why is it that MORE ado is better?
        incongruity 14y ago
        The simplest answer: see work on abductive reasoning and hypothesis building. But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. They're individual experience. They are not, of course, a statistically representative sample. That doesn't mean it's worthless – it's just not authoritative, but it is still some person's real experience (internet truthiness aside). The all-or nothing view of validity and knowledge is problematic – and likely not reflective of how you or anyone else actually deals with reasoning. Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's still of value.
mullingitover 14y ago
Here's some data: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4257458 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4257458
taligent 14y ago
> Which is important because the tech field is what generally leads the growth curve. No it doesn't. You only have to look at Digg and Reddit to see that just because you have tech users does not mean you will see widespread growth outside that demographic. And sites like Linkedin, Pinterest, Instagram even Facebook grew because of non tech users.
- huggyface 14y ago
  I'm a little unsure what you mean by referencing Digg and Reddit, however both of them were/are limited to the tech field. They both started as programmer link sites, but that side of the sites withered away as they became yet another mainstream site. LinkedIn was dominated by the tech field. Specifically the valley tech field. That was what gave it the network effect.

hyperbovine 14y ago

> Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes? Why, haven't you heard? The plural of anecdote is data! :-)

incongruity 14y ago

Because data can also lie. The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us? Not much at all because it says nothing of intent, much less duration of stay on that page or frequency of use. In the absence of that additional data, anecdotes can be useful to express doubt or confusion about data that seems to not pass the sniff-test. It can be as minimal as "is it just me, or does ... ?" sort of constructions or it can be more formalized to say – "This doesn't fit with my personal observations". The mistake is thinking that anecdotes add up to data – they don't – but put enough of them together and they can be heuristically valuable – and one on its own, in the absence of other real data, is still a completely valid construct for conversational purposes or to challenge (albeit weakly) some over-cooked claim, like what I'm seeing here, with the google+ traffic data. The refutation of such an anecdotal experience with sound evidence doesn't mean the the anecdote was worthless – hardly. It was valuable because it was provocative.

saraid216 14y ago
OP: Wrong. Anecdote: Wrong. incongruity: Two wrongs make a right!
- incongruity 14y ago
  George E.P. Box is quoted as saying: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." I would adapt that and say that all anecdotes are wrong, but some are useful.
  - kingkilr 14y ago
    Surely you have to make an actual argument as to why it's useful though? So far all I've heard is "my friends don't use G+".
    - incongruity 14y ago
      Truth be told, I'm not arguing strongly in support of the original bit of anecdotal evidence. I was more responding to the quote: "Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes?" I feel as though I made my case pretty well for a generalized reason, above. In this particular case, as I said: "The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us? Not much at all because it says nothing of intent, much less duration of stay on that page or frequency of use. I think there's much ado about little data. So, in the face of not all that informative of data, I think a weak bit of anecdotal pushback is wonderful if it gets conversation started.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        Conversation is pretty worthless when it's speculation piled on speculation. If that's your thing, then well... okay. I mean... if there's much ado about little data, why is it that MORE ado is better?
        incongruity 14y ago
        The simplest answer: see work on abductive reasoning and hypothesis building. But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. They're individual experience. They are not, of course, a statistically representative sample. That doesn't mean it's worthless – it's just not authoritative, but it is still some person's real experience (internet truthiness aside). The all-or nothing view of validity and knowledge is problematic – and likely not reflective of how you or anyone else actually deals with reasoning. Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's still of value.

mullingitover 14y ago

Here's some data: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4257458 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4257458

taligent 14y ago

> Which is important because the tech field is what generally leads the growth curve. No it doesn't. You only have to look at Digg and Reddit to see that just because you have tech users does not mean you will see widespread growth outside that demographic. And sites like Linkedin, Pinterest, Instagram even Facebook grew because of non tech users.

huggyface 14y ago
I'm a little unsure what you mean by referencing Digg and Reddit, however both of them were/are limited to the tech field. They both started as programmer link sites, but that side of the sites withered away as they became yet another mainstream site. LinkedIn was dominated by the tech field. Specifically the valley tech field. That was what gave it the network effect.