Recent Updates RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Ben 10:55 on Sunday, April 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply  

    SQL fiddle: Share and edit schemas and queries online 

    Crowd Q&A sites – particularly StackOverflow - are a massive help if you are struggling with a tech problem, but one of the niggles is that it is sometimes hard to communicate your issue.  Posting example code and error logs helps, but it is not the same as being able to let someone else quickly run the code to see what happens.  The same goes for people trying to help out by posting answers.

    Well, for SQL issues there is now a tool you can use to share examples that people can experiment with online: SQLFiddle.   You can select a database, build a schema, populate it with data and run queries against it.  All the main RDBMSs are supported.

    There is a similar site for JavaScript, HTML and CSS too: JSFiddle.

     
  • Ben 9:36 on Friday, March 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply  

    And it’s official: Google is in the market research business. 

    Well, that makes things interesting.  Here is a very cool curve ball pitched to the market research and publishing industries; basically the Adsense model applied to market research questions:

    http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/home

    They are pitching their micro-survey paywall method as costing about 1/10th of standard online research, but I’m not sure the two are that easily comparable.  Although there is the potential for everyone to win here (except readers who hate interruptions ;), I have some pretty big reservations about the potential quality issues.  At first glance I can only see this being useful to those who want to quickly ask one or two questions to a large, untargeted group.

    They say they can do targeting, but this will be based on the estimated audience profile of the content publishers they are working with along with cookie info and IP data, rather than information held at an individual level. Also, their post-stratification is heavily reliant on a large-scale third-party survey of internet use.  That will likely be problematic if you are somewhere (like NZ) that doesn’t have a good info base for stratification or IP ranges that don’t lend well to geo-targeting.

    And they say they can find correlations between questions even when they only ask people one question at a time.  To do that they will either have to do data fusion (potentially dodgy, especially if it is on top of already estimated demographic info) or ask subsets of people multiple questions which they then use for correlation analysis (possibly as a base for data fusion).  Either way they’ll be increasing the error around any correlations identified.

    Google is teeming with smart people, and they have done some pretty good benchmarking to prove that it is possible to get results that are at least as accurate as online panel-based estimates, so they are no doubt taking at least some of those issues into account in their calculations.  And a big tick has to go in their box for being open about the limitations of their method.  However, this will essentially be a self-service offering, just like Adsense.  There won’t be a quant-head available to provide advice on the potential pitfalls of relying on the information and I suspect most end-users won’t understand the types and sources of error in the estimates that pop out.

    That said, many market research providers probably don’t give great advice to their end users anyway!

    My take is that this service will be more of a competitor to crowd sourcing offerings (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Crowdflower) than online market research panel providers, particularly for those wanting to do some ‘quick and simple’ surveys.  That segment is still a large growth market, so either way Google and content publishers win.

    I’ll definitely be taking it for a spin :)

    (here is an earlier post of mine relating to this)

     
  • Ben 19:47 on Tuesday, March 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Data driven decision making 

    Some real-world examples from one of the exemplars:

    Originally found at:

    http://insidesearch.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/video-search-quality-meeting-uncut.html?m=1

    http://insidesearch.blogspot.co.nz/2011/08/another-look-under-hood-of-search.html

    See also, Google’s User Interface Design and Decision Process.

     

     
  • Ben 13:08 on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply  

    Training a model using Google Prediction API and Crowdsourcing 

    http://www.dialogueearth.org/2012/02/29/google_prediction_api_crowdflower/

    And here is the demo application:

    http://www.sproutloop.com/prediction_demo/

     
  • Ben 10:13 on Thursday, February 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Archimedes and Newton: Old school split testers 

    It is not uncommon to see news stories celebrating the success of some initiative or individual as being due to some bright idea or moment of inspiration.  This phenomenon is not new; every child is taught that Archimedes had his ‘Eureka moment’ and can recite the story of Netwon’s falling apple.  It is these flashes of insight that we remember and strive to emulate.

    However, the focus on creativity is unfortunate because it only paints half the picture.  For instance, the ‘file drawer problem’ means we see those flashes of inspiration that led to success, rather than the countless others that didn’t.  And, it is easy to forget that people like Archimedes and Newton were old-school split testers.  They subjected idea after idea to the brutal scientific method and learned from the many failures they no doubt had.  It is their perseverance and commitment to testing, not just their creativity, that we should remember them for.

    Fortunately, more news is starting to bubble to the surface about the interplay between the creative and scientific processes.  For instance, this wired story shows how the gaming industry (typically considered a bastion of creativity and design) is embracing split testing to drive development decisions.  I also recently saw the following talk shared widely on Twitter about the testing that went into the success of Obama’s 2008 fundraising campaigns.

    These stories highlight the fact that creative ideas are like the random mutations that drive the evolutionary process.  They are necessary, but certainly not sufficient, for progress to occur.  And another interesting recurrent theme is that the mental models underlying our creativity – the source of our ‘gut feelings’ about what will work – are often wrong.  Indeed, testing is essential to updating these models and is an under appreciated input to the creative process.  Together, they form an iterative learning cycle.

    This interplay has implications for organisational and personal development in that as much effort should be put into developing the testing and learning process as goes into supporting the creative process.

     
  • Ben 9:16 on Sunday, January 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Just keeping for later: Public datasets hosted on Amazon AWS. https://aws.amazon.com/datasets

     
  • Ben 13:03 on Thursday, January 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply  

    A few select pics from a recent trip.  By fluke of nature we managed to catch 11 days of sun from the 13 we were away. The rest of the country wasn’t so lucky.  It was great to get out and see more of the homeland. Like many New Zealanders, prior to this road trip I’d seen more foreign soil than I had of my own.

    The Marina at Picton.

     

    A seal playing.  Royal Albatross centre, Otago Peninsula.

     

    Mark of the seagull. Royal Albatross centre, Otago Peninsula.

     

    New Year Rodeo, Wanaka.

     

    View over Wanaka from Mt. Iron.

     

    An earnest Dork impression. Fox Glacier.

     

    Franz Joseph Glacier.

     

    Inside an abandoned Gold Mine. Near Greymouth.

     

    Steps carved into the Pancake Rocks. Punakaiki.

     

    Sea-spray through a blow hole. Punakaiki.

     

    There are no photos from the Ferry crossing at the end of the trip, but it was eventful enough to remember without them.  We crossed in 50-55 knot gales, so at least half of the passengers got seasick …Myself included.

     
  • Ben 11:54 on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    Confidence bias in action 

    I’ve dabbled a little with crowdsourcing for my own projects, but never used it as a primary research tool.  It isn’t hard to see how the major crowdsourcing platforms like Mechanical Turk could be used to undertake quick and cost-effective behavioural research (potential for bias notwithstanding!).  So, the following study by crowdsourcing firm Crowdflower on its own worker base was interesting in itself.  That it related to another interest of mine, human bias, made it even more intriguing :)

    Confidence Bias: Evidence from Crowdsourcing

    The key take-out: over 75% of contributors overestimated their ability to answer multiple choice questions correctly.  The Dunning-Kruger effect is alive and well!

     
  • Ben 10:18 on Sunday, November 20, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    Do not therefore consider this life as an object of any moment. Look back on the immense gulf of time already past; and forwards, to that infinite duration yet to come, and you will find how trifling the difference is between a life of three days and of three ages. Let us then employ properly this moment of time allotted us by fate, and leave the world contentedly; like a ripe olive dropping from its stalk, speaking well of the soil that produced it, and of the tree that bore it.

    Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
     
  • Ben 8:23 on Friday, November 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Survey Walls   

    Looks like Google is getting into the Survey Business 

    From Neiman Journalism Lab:

    Google appears to be experimenting with a new paywall-esque content roadblock for publishers, and it’s not One Pass. For lack of a better name, let’s call it a “survey wall,” because instead of dollars the system asks readers a question before they can move on to continue reading what they like.

    This could get interesting.  Instead of a standard paywall, people may be able to ‘pay’ for content by answering survey questions.  The publisher gets valuable information it can on-sell to advertisers, and Google dulls the old-media knives that are increasingly aimed at its vital organs. A natural extension of this would be that the publisher would become a survey panel provider of sorts.  Survey companies would be able to buy access to the survey-wall to ask their own questions for a fee-per-answer.  There is also no reason why independent panel companies could attempt to step into the role Google appears to be playing as the third-party technology provider.

    Of course, there are big questions about the quality of data that may come from these distributed surveys.

    • Would people answer honestly?
    • What can reasonably be done with one or two answers from each visitor? (e.g., it would be difficult to examine relationships between more than a couple of variables)
    • Why would we expect people who visit survey-wall sites to be representative of a given population?
    These, and other questions, will keep survey methodologists in business for a while :)
     
    • davidwallacefleming 9:00 on Friday, November 11, 2011 Permalink

      Valuable information to stay appraised of. Thank you. I hope this does not get implemented.

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.