4 ms·
I find it amusing that the article talks about big mistakes in polling data, when the clear winner of the last two US elections is one Nate Silver, who aggregat
by hibikir 13y ago
I find it amusing that the article talks about big mistakes in polling data, when the clear winner of the last two US elections is one Nate Silver, who aggregated polls to get predictions so close to the actual results, one wonders why people actually vote anymore.
Now, just like with every other technological solution, we only learn about the limits of its use by overuse. There's plenty of people out there storing large amounts of data and getting no valuable conclusions out of it. But the fact that many people will fail doesn't mean the concept is not worth pursuing.
Chasing what is cool is a pretty dangerous impulse. The trick is to be able to tell when it can pay off, and to quickly learn when it will not, and cut your losses. Maybe you don't need big data, just like maybe your shiny cutting edge library might not be ready for production.
- joosters 13y agoBut the article also talks about good polling data too. In effect, people have been making good and bad election predictions for decades.
- jaravis 13y agoNate's approach is based on evaluating the quality of the various polls - which is the thrust of the FT article. In fact he actively weighted each of the polls & corrected for known biases.