4 ms·

I have seen this "what is that we don't know" argument used over and over again. The primary claim being the other side has more data and can thus make more int

I have seen this "what is that we don't know" argument used over and over again. The primary claim being the other side has more data and can thus make more intelligent decisions. A big problem here is that more data somehow translated to better decisions. The second being that the twitter folks are intelligent than me (they could very well be but cannot derive at that decision. which is to say, you simply have to think that you are smarter than them).

ianamartin 12y ago
Agree. More data does not automatically equal more or better insights. It's a well-known problem in the Market Research world that frequently, more data clouds issues and makes focusing on core problems and insights MORE difficult. The concept of "don't give suggestions to people who have more data than you do" makes no sense to me at all. It's very easy when you have mountains of data to spend all your time solving the problem of what the data might mean instead of solving the problem of how best to get people to sign up. Also, when you look at a thing someone has build or a process someone is using to accomplish a thing and you say, "I really don't like the way this works. Maybe you should try something different." You are, in fact, adding to that mountain of data that twitter already has. It's up to twitter to go back to the data and ask, "How many other people feel the same way? Did we make this decision based on usability testing? Did we make it because we wanted to make sure we were collecting certain key metrics? Are the reasons we made this decision solidly grounded still?"