View Single Post
Old 02-15-2014, 07:28 PM   #65
SteveEisenberg
Grand Sorcerer
SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.SteveEisenberg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,435
Karma: 43514536
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
But where did the data come from? Mr Howey's anonymous source? If that's the case, its validity can't be checked (can it? I'm happy to corrected if I'm wrong about that).
I don't see a need for correction.

Someone can try to repeat what Howey describes, but it won't be exactly replicated, if only because Amazon is often tweaking how it presents data to its customers.

I mentioned the anonymous source thing tongue in cheek because, while it's possibly true, it doesn't feel that way. Don't authors, as a class, like to draw a bit of attention to themselves? Few would want to do so much work and then pass on all credit to someone else, while completely losing control of how the data is used. In a real collaboration, there are multiple credited authors.

I'm not saying the article is bunk. But I group it closer to punditry than science.

Last edited by SteveEisenberg; 02-15-2014 at 07:32 PM.
SteveEisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote