4 ms·

What you wrote suggests the data will bias predictably, which matches my understanding. Reporting biased data as the default because the bias compensation is a

by svnt 7mo ago

What you wrote suggests the data will bias predictably, which matches my understanding. Reporting biased data as the default because the bias compensation is already built into the audience seems like a weak argument for not improving. They can provide for the continuation of data visibility/granularity by releasing the prior numbers as previously calculated and at the same time changing the calculation of the headline number to be better compensated. The simpler argument is that changing it at all will result in a negative step change in the reporting that no one wants to take accountability for.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> What you wrote suggests the data will bias predictably Ex post facto. Before the fact, we don’t know. Imagine you know the weather will be a strong gust regardless of direction. Averaging the models will produce a central estimate. But you know it will be biased away from the center. You just don’t know, until it happens, in which direction. > They can provide for the continuation of data visibility/granularity by releasing the prior numbers as previously calculated and at the same time changing the calculation of the headline number to be better compensated They do. These data are all recalculated with each methodological change. They’re just deprecated indices the media don’t report on because they’re of academic, not broad, concern. > simpler argument is that changing it at all will result in a negative step change in the reporting Simpler but wrong. Those data would be useless for the same reason we don’t let CEOs smooth revenues.
- svnt 7mo ago
  I’m confused by this discussion. It seems like you said the biases were structural because we know who reports early and that is why the early numbers are always revised down. Structural implies known in advance. It also seems like you said they shouldn’t revise the numbers but now you are saying they already do. What am I misunderstanding?

by svnt 7mo ago

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> What you wrote suggests the data will bias predictably Ex post facto. Before the fact, we don’t know. Imagine you know the weather will be a strong gust regardless of direction. Averaging the models will produce a central estimate. But you know it will be biased away from the center. You just don’t know, until it happens, in which direction. > They can provide for the continuation of data visibility/granularity by releasing the prior numbers as previously calculated and at the same time changing the calculation of the headline number to be better compensated They do. These data are all recalculated with each methodological change. They’re just deprecated indices the media don’t report on because they’re of academic, not broad, concern. > simpler argument is that changing it at all will result in a negative step change in the reporting Simpler but wrong. Those data would be useless for the same reason we don’t let CEOs smooth revenues.

svnt 7mo ago
I’m confused by this discussion. It seems like you said the biases were structural because we know who reports early and that is why the early numbers are always revised down. Structural implies known in advance. It also seems like you said they shouldn’t revise the numbers but now you are saying they already do. What am I misunderstanding?