Jump to content

Google Glass


Arch
 Share

Recommended Posts

Take it another way. Some sad tw4ts have multiple Twitter accounts, facebook accounts and any other social network accounts.

That's what stops statistics being 100% fact.

 

Some people have personal and work Twitter and Facebook accounts, for very specific reasons.  I'm struggling with why that makes them sad twats

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some have multiple accounts for mischievous reasons.

 

Some have multiple for legitimate reasons.

 

 

Hence why I said some sad tw4ts rather than 'sad tw4ts with multiple......'

 

 

 

The fact that quite a few people have multiple social network accounts distorts the statistics that are presented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it another way. Some sad tw4ts have multiple Twitter accounts, facebook accounts and any other social network accounts.

That's what stops statistics being 100% fact.

 

Earlier you said you get the figures direct from the platform. What does that mean? Is Facebook giving you statistics about Facebook? If it is I'm sure you can guess my next argument. 

 

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, they all share activity data with organisations.  This isn't new.  There is no privacy or SRR breaches - because you agree to them doing it when you sign up.

 

As for the statistics not being 100% fact, you're basing that on a personal assumption that the platforms don't filter out duplicate accounts and IP address based activity.  These aren't stupid companies.  They have to give as accurate information as possible in order to sell advertising and not be accused of fraudulent declarations.

 

Nothing is very going to be 100% accurate, be it Facebook statistics, car buyer statistics, whatever it is - because you're reliant on the information people give you.  And guess what?  People lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The fact that quite a few people have multiple social network accounts distorts the statistics that are presented. 

 

As I've just said above though, you're basing that on what you know or think about how the platforms present their statistics and giving no credit to their own audit systems that are there to discount the very type of accounts you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens if I log on to my facebook account at home and then when I get to work i log onto my work facebook account, both from different computers.

What will that show? It won't show that 1 person has used facebook, it will show two people have used Facebook.

Your statistics only show how many accounts are accessed per day not how many people accessed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course it will show two people using it - because you're saying it is from two different Facebook accounts.

 

However, I don't think you've understood what I've said about the intelligence of it distinguishing fraudulent or multi-account use from those using it legitimately in the same way you describe above.  The example you've given would be entirely correct to be classed as two people - because they are doing so for entirely different purposes.

 

I'm not going to try to convince you further that the systems to eliminate a high degree of inaccuracy exist though.   I'm not being arsey saying that, I just don't see the need to have to qualify things when I've already tried to explain them reasonably.+++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess what? :roflmao:

54% use both, one or the other.

42% of the entire population alone use Facebook DAILY. 26 million people.

Again, just because it isn't what one person does, it doesn't mean many others don't.

p.s. and 78% of all UK Facebook access is via a mobile phone.

I'm sure you'll tell me you don't believe it, and I don't need you to. It is entirely true though.

In an early conversation with Tipex you were adamant that 42% of the ENTIRE population uses Facebook.

You used your statistics for proof.

My point is statistics can not prove this and gave a very basic but obvious reason why the statistics you used are flawed.

Looking at the statistics you gave, anyone with any common sense would call bollox. Take all the young children, all the elderly, all the inform or those that lack the capacity, add in all the people who choose not to use social media.

The total can't possibl be what your statistics show. Again my example shows this.

No need to explain the process just accept that Tipex was correct after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy, you're utterly and completely wrong, but from the look of it explaining why is akin to pissing in the wind :P

 

As an added side note, a lot of companies use social without most users realising they're using it. 

Edited by Mac
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain Mac. My example which is a real world example of what I and many people do.

I use my personal Facebook account at home on my laptop, logging in through my homes wifi.

I then go to work and log on to my works Facebook account using my work desk top using my works wifi.

(Or someone uses different divices in different places for whatever reason)

Statistically 2 people have used Facebook that day.

Reality, one person has.

How is that wrong?

No argument, genuinely interested to know how Facebook etc know it's the same person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an early conversation with Tipex you were adamant that 42% of the ENTIRE population uses Facebook.

You used your statistics for proof.

My point is statistics can not prove this and gave a very basic but obvious reason why the statistics you used are flawed.

Looking at the statistics you gave, anyone with any common sense would call bollox. Take all the young children, all the elderly, all the inform or those that lack the capacity, add in all the people who choose not to use social media.

The total can't possibl be what your statistics show. Again my example shows this.

No need to explain the process just accept that Tipex was correct after all.

 

Billy, they're not my statistics.  I quoted them.

 

Look at it another way - 58% of the population don't use Facebook. 

 

11 million people are aged over 65.  You might be surprised how many of them choose to use Facebook (by far the largest age group in terms of year on year growth in the UK).

 

Then there are 7 million under the age of 14 years old. 

 

However, included in the 7 million of those aged under 14 are 13 year olds and a lot more people under that age who use Facebook (and shouldn't be) in the UK.

 

So, why do you think "it is bollox" or I should just "accept" that someone else is right?  Because it isn't a statistic you can relate to?  Because you have some form of inside knowledge from Facebook that they won't publish publicly?  I don't really know.  But as I said above, I have no need to try to qualify them.

 

If you want to disagree with them, feel free, but please don't try to tell me I must do something based on your quoting of two age groups and a presumption you've made with both of them.+++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My example which is a real world example of what I and many people do.

 

This is the problem.  Based on what you and what you think many people do.

 

Quantify that. 

I get statistics in front of me every day.  Just because I don't do what the statistics say others do, doesn't mean they are incorrect. 

The most successful organisations in the world tend to take note of statistics because they understand that it is often fatal to think everyone else thinks or acts in the same way you/they do.

 

This is my last post.  Mac is correct.  It is a complete waste of time trying to tell you anything.  You'll believe what you want to, so what on earth is the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of waffle that proves nothing.

It's very simple I gave a real world example on how the statistics you quoted are wrong and can't possibly show what they are suggesting.

No more no less.

Explain how my example is wrong and I will change my views. Help me understand.

 

 

Oh feck off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy, at a simple level, I think you vastly, massively underestimate the power of Business Intelligence reporting and data mining. Do you not think you can include your scenarios in the modelling...? Of course you can. Even behavioural stats can be included. It's astonishingly accurate, and the more data they have the more accurate it becomes, not the other way around. Yes, it even accounts for people having accounts for their cats or lizards. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain Mac. My example which is a real world example of what I and many people do.

I use my personal Facebook account at home on my laptop, logging in through my homes wifi. [MAC] Personal account, it's personal.

I then go to work and log on to my works Facebook account using my work desk top using my works wifi.

(Or someone uses different divices in different places for whatever reason) [MAC] Work/business accounts are not personal ones, they should be pages or whatever, but not the same as 'person'. If you do set up a 'Person' account as a business eventually FB will get to you and you'll be told to change it or it'll be removed. Completely different entities.

Statistically 2 people have used Facebook that day. 

Reality, one person has.

How is that wrong?

No argument, genuinely interested to know how Facebook etc know it's the same person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy - MrMe has taken the time to provide information based on what he knows, by working in that industry.  It's what he does for a living.  You keep dismissing what he says in answer to your questions, using phrases like "A lot of waffle that proves nothing".

 

I wouldn't expect him to give any more explanation than he already has.  You're coming across like an argumentative tit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess work though Mac not 100% accurate.

Facebook will get to you eventually, if they find out etc but they don't know for sure.

Not all business use business pages.

Again FB or whatever site can 'guess ' the number of people who have more than one account but there is no way of knowing for sure.

I asked 20,000 people if they liked football. I asked a cross section of ages, and ethnic backgrounds, I asked males an females.

20,000 people said they liked football. 100% of those asked.

Statistics, give me a break.

*survey was carried out at lasts nights football match between Bolton and Liverpool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy - MrMe has taken the time to provide information based on what he knows, by working in that industry. It's what he does for a living. You keep dismissing what he says in answer to your questions, using phrases like "A lot of waffle that proves nothing".

I wouldn't expect him to give any more explanation than he already has. You're coming across like an argumentative tit.

Mook I gave an opinion on my field of work not so long ago and was completely shut down. When I proved my point with evidence the replies then changed to 'who gives a sh1t'

I didn't see you then.

Regardless of someone's professional background they can be wrong or I can choose to question what they are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not been on here for a few months and I'm not on here all the time and don't read every thread, so I guess I missed that thread.

 

No-one is saying you can't disagree with someone, but you're just continually blatting evidence-based information provided in answer to your questions.  You're entitled to your opinions, but please give it a break - you disagree.  You've said you disagree.  Point taken.  Move on.

 

Ta +++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess work :roflmao:

 

Riight, and you immediately demonstrate your knowledge of data mining right there. No more from me, I really couldn't care less about you being wrong.

 

 

Of course it's guess work.

 

 

Mac, please go and look at any information regarding the population of this country. Every source will quote an estimate (educated guess). No one knows the amount of British citizens let alone foreign people coming and going, legally or illegally.

 

Then take the statistics quoted earlier made up from social media outlets estimating (guessing) the number of users. Guessing the number of people that have multiple accounts for themselves, pets etc.

 

Then factor in the social networks are giving you these figures themselves.

 

All these estimates and possibly massaged numbers are then correlated and bang 58% of the country are suddenly proven to use social media regularly.  

 

We don't even know what 58% of the population is. So forgive me for not believing that 58% of the country does something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...