Siri's reliance on Google cut in half with iOS 6

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 119
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    There testing method seems pretty decent to me. The only thing I would have done to round off that article was to note how the margin off error. Answers.com has 2x the number of US citizens as the number of mailing addresses. Using that with the 311.5 million US citizens we get 623 million addresses. With a sample size of 1000 we have a margin or error of 3.1.
    Again, we don't know if they verified all their 1000 US addresses, how they chose the addresses, how they verified them. As previously stated this is an issue that will require a consensus on what is considered in/accurate which is why I think your position on this issue is ultimately flawed.

    It has nothing to do with sample size. As in all the other threads where this keeps coming up, I've pointed out that 1000 samples is enough for reasonable accuracy (+/- 3% or so) IF (and only if) the sample is representative and random.

    We have no way of knowing of the sample is representative or random. For all we know, they may have taken the sample from a list of complaints that they received. The fact that they are a Google partner is further indication that the data should not be accepted at face value - particularly when they leave out critical issues like how the sample was selected.

    In fact, the information they provide is a pretty clear indication that the sample is biased. They stated "We started with a list of 1,000 US businesses in our database". So they are using places that are already their partners. And given that they are a Google partner, that makes their list suspect from the start.
  • Reply 102 of 119
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I would never expect you to be satisfied.

    Of course not. As I pointed out earlier, there is no indication of how the sample was selected or how representative it might be. Without that information, it doesn't matter if they sample 1000 locations or 1,000,000.

    Furthermore, the place you cited is a Google partner. No reason to believe that they're impartial.

    So, you still have not proven the oft-repeated claim that Apple's Maps is anywhere near as bad as is claimed.
  • Reply 103 of 119
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with sample size. As in all the other threads where this keeps coming up, I've pointed out that 1000 samples is enough for reasonable accuracy (+/- 3% or so) IF (and only if) the sample is representative and random.
    We have no way of knowing of the sample is representative or random. For all we know, they may have taken the sample from a list of complaints that they received. The fact that they are a Google partner is further indication that the data should not be accepted at face value - particularly when they leave out critical issues like how the sample was selected.

    And I've explained several times that you can never know if a sample size is truly representative or random, or if the results are truly accurate without a consensus. You want something that you can't possibly have. To me this is worse than asking someone to prove a negative.


    PS: No one is saying you should accept any data at face value.
  • Reply 104 of 119
    I'll have to try asking Siri to "Find the nearest Chik Fil A" instead of "find the nearest Jesus chicken that's never open on Sunday". Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong.

    Oh look, another crying liberal.
  • Reply 105 of 119
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,354member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Of course not. As I pointed out earlier, there is no indication of how the sample was selected or how representative it might be. Without that information, it doesn't matter if they sample 1000 locations or 1,000,000.

    Furthermore, the place you cited is a Google partner. No reason to believe that they're impartial.


    A Google partner? I would assume you read your entire linked article. You're claiming since they assisted someone else with a project that also received assistance from Google 2 years ago in 2010 it makes them a current partner of Google? Surely that's not all you have. If so it doesn't say what you wish it did. Gruber and his surveys are more a "partner" to Apple than this one is to Google if that's your only evidence that they're in Google's pocket. 

  • Reply 106 of 119
    alexnalexn Posts: 119member

    Woo hoo! My eyes! My poor eyes! I done gone blind!

    That should do it ;). (The forum software does not like quoting that stuff!)
  • Reply 107 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    I'm sure it happens. I've not seen anything that clearly says Google does that here. I don't like seeing such an accusation without proof because that's the first stage of how heresay becomes established fact.

    I know of two cases where an employee of a given company posted here, but I don't think they were necessarily paid to do so.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Right, neither have I, and I agree with you on providing proof.



     


    Based on the standard of proof you're insisting on, subatomic particles are "hearsay".


     


    Just because someone from Adobe was the only one stupid enough to post here from company IPs, doesn't mean there aren't other people here doing this. You can't even tell reliably what country people are posting from based on their IP, let alone who they are working for.

  • Reply 108 of 119
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    anonymouse wrote: »

    Based on the standard of proof you're insisting on, subatomic particles are "hearsay".

    No. The standard for proof in particle physics makes courtroom evidence standards look like kangaroo court.

    Just because someone from Adobe was the only one stupid enough to post here from company IPs, doesn't mean there aren't other people here doing this. You can't even tell reliably what country people are posting from based on their IP, let alone who they are working for.

    We're not saying it doesn't or can't happen. But to make specific accusations without proof is irresponsible.
  • Reply 109 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    No. The standard for proof in particle physics makes courtroom evidence standards look like kangaroo court.

    We're not saying it doesn't or can't happen. But to make specific accusations without proof is irresponsible.


     


    You're missing or ignoring the point. Nothing is ever directly observed in particle physics, it's inferred, indirectly, from observations of other phenomena.


     


    Just out of curiosity, what exactly would be considered "proof" that a specific person is a shill? What would be the minimum proof required?

  • Reply 110 of 119


    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

    Based on the standard of proof you're insisting on, subatomic particles are "hearsay".


     


    Just because someone from Adobe was the only one stupid enough to post here from company IPs, doesn't mean there aren't other people here doing this. You can't even tell reliably what country people are posting from based on their IP, let alone who they are working for.



     


    Innocent until proven guilty. You have to remember that.


     


    Guilt could come from a few sources:



    • posting from company-owned IP addresses


    • Outright stating occupation in a post


    • Outright stating intent in a post


    • and more that I'm forgetting


     


    Point is, if we don't have a line to draw, then everyone fighting for any company has to be considered a shill, regardless of where they are.


     


    We've had a few South Korean signups recently, but only a few (they're banned now) ever posted from Samsung-owned IPs.


     


    And it's easier to find this stuff out with just an IP than you'd think.

  • Reply 111 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Innocent until proven guilty. You have to remember that.


     


    Guilt could come from a few sources:



    • posting from company-owned IP addresses


    • Outright stating occupation in a post


    • Outright stating intent in a post


    • and more that I'm forgetting


     


    Point is, if we don't have a line to draw, then everyone fighting for any company has to be considered a shill, regardless of where they are.


     


    We've had a few South Korean signups recently, but only a few (they're banned now) ever posted from Samsung-owned IPs.


     


    And it's easier to find this stuff out with just an IP than you'd think.



     


    Based on those standards, acceptable "proof" is impossible for a shill with half a brain. No one with any sense is going to post from an IP block associated with their company, or the company that is footing the bill, and they are certainly not going to admit to it. So, essentially, the dumb ones get banned, but the ones that are even slightly clever, no one is even allowed to state that they believe them to be a shill? 

  • Reply 112 of 119


    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

    …no one is even allowed to state that they believe them to be a shill? 


     


    That's where Jeff and I disagree, I think. If you have reason to believe this and can assemble valid evidence of such, I think you can mention it in your rebuttals to points that are made by the person, but don't just go off and say, "He's a shill for [company]; everything he says is wrong."

  • Reply 113 of 119
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    You're missing or ignoring the point. Nothing is ever directly observed in particle physics, it's inferred, indirectly, from observations of other phenomena.

    Just out of curiosity, what exactly would be considered "proof" that a specific person is a shill? What would be the minimum proof required?

    One is rigorous, the other is most often a lazy accusation. As such, the metaphor fails.

    anonymouse wrote: »
    Based on those standards, acceptable "proof" is impossible for a shill with half a brain. No one with any sense is going to post from an IP block associated with their company, or the company that is footing the bill, and they are certainly not going to admit to it. So, essentially, the dumb ones get banned, but the ones that are even slightly clever, no one is even allowed to state that they believe them to be a shill?

    Because an accusation leads to a toxic conversation or is an attempt to shut down the discussion, I think the burden of the argument is on the accuser, or better not stated.
  • Reply 114 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post





    One is rigorous, the other is most often a lazy accusation. As such, the metaphor fails.

    Because an accusation leads to a toxic conversation or is an attempt to shut down the discussion, I think the burden of the argument is on the accuser, or better not stated.


     


    An "accusation" puts their comments in the context they belong in. Which points out the irony in the shill policy that seems to have been overlooked.


     


    If a shill is honest, admits they are a shill, thus putting their comments in the context to which they belong, they get banned. If the shill is dishonest, covers their tracks, denies they are doing what they are doing, not only is their behavior sanctioned, but they are protected by a policy that demands an impossible level of "proof". In effect, you are telling the shills, "If you want to post here, you'll have to lie about who you are and what you're doing. As long as you do that, we'll protect you from exposure."


     


    Doesn't it seem like you have everything backwards?

  • Reply 115 of 119
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    An "accusation" puts their comments in the context they belong in. Which points out the irony in the shill policy that seems to have been overlooked.

    If a shill is honest, admits they are a shill, thus putting their comments in the context to which they belong, they get banned. If the shill is dishonest, covers their tracks, denies they are doing what they are doing, not only is their behavior sanctioned, but they are protected by a policy that demands an impossible level of "proof". In effect, you are telling the shills, "If you want to post here, you'll have to lie about who you are and what you're doing. As long as you do that, we'll protect you from exposure."

    Doesn't it seem like you have everything backwards?

    First, there is no shill policy. This too is just my opinion.

    I agree it's a difficult standard. But I prefer that to allowing people attempt to shut down a conversation by labelling people shills. Again, toxic conversation.

    Both you and jragosta claimed that Google have shill campaigns, and I'm curious if this can be backed up at all. If it really is known, is it really known by anything better than assumptions?
  • Reply 116 of 119

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post



    Both you and jragosta claimed that Google have shill campaigns, and I'm curious if this can be backed up at all. If it really is known, is it really known by anything better than assumptions?


     


    They've been outed for astroturfing campaigns in the past. Given everything we know about Google, given all the illegal and unethical activities they've engaged in, do you really think it stopped there, or that it was an isolated incident? I don't. I can't see how anyone could.

  • Reply 117 of 119
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    They've been outed for astroturfing campaigns in the past. 



     


     


    Companies have astroturfed  _against_  Google.  


     


    Can you link to any cases with proof that Google engaged in it themselves?


     


    It 's always possible, but I don't recall any.


     


    Thanks!

  • Reply 118 of 119
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    They've been outed for astroturfing campaigns in the past.

    Sorry, I've not seen those conversations.

    Given everything we know about Google, given all the illegal and unethical activities they've engaged in, do you really think it stopped there, or that it was an isolated incident? I don't. I can't see how anyone could.

    I generally like to make claims based on knowledge and not assumption. Adding assumed sins to a list of known sins simply because it's plausible that they did other sins too, seems irresponsible.
  • Reply 119 of 119
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

Sign In or Register to comment.