Comments on: Pear Analytics Twitter Report: Criticisms of the coding methods

By: Definatalie

Definatalie — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:41 +0000

[...] And not just because I'm biased. That "pointless babble" study undertaken by Pear Analytics was revealed by Stephen Dann to be a hugely flawed report with questionable methodologies, plus it was some kind of PR exercise [...]

By: Shared Items – August 21, 2009 | Einar Thorsen

Shared Items – August 21, 2009 | Einar Thorsen — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:05:48 +0000

[...] Pear Analytics Twitter Report: Criticisms of the coding methods: Stephendann.com [...]

By: When pointless babble isn’t - Behind Glass Walls

When pointless babble isn’t - Behind Glass Walls — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:19:49 +0000

[...] is Stephen Dann’s major complaint about the study (and mine is that most mainstream newspapers dutifully reported without any further [...]

By: Stephen Dann

Stephen Dann — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:41:37 +0000

@Stilgherrian and @Websinthe: Given it was presented as a white paper, and press releases, and was reported wholesale by various media points -it’s a journalististic piece of fluff. The marketer here beat the hell out of it in minutes, and the journalists ran with it.

Damn journalistic pieces of fluff.

By: Websinthe

Websinthe — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:20:56 +0000

I agree with Stil, Sarah’s missed the point completely, and the promotion of software in all of this is dubious at best.

Your average stat’s graduate would have blanched at much of your methodology and reporting, and calling this an ‘office study’ that people have latched onto is a trite euphemism for ‘we wanted page hits not academic scrutiny’. Bad luck, if you put numbers on a white paper and give it any sought of promotion you will be analysed, and in this case, found wanting.

It’s equally depressing that this was picked up by the press as serious and, dare I say it, reliable.

Here’s a statistic I’ve just come up with from my own office study: 100% of Pear Analytics research is marketing fluff. I used roughly the same criteria, sample percentage capture and scientific rigor.

By: Mark Pack

Mark Pack — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:35:58 +0000

Sarah: Thanks for taking the time to join in this discussion but I’m left really puzzled by your comment, “Many of the posts weren’t even in English”. What’s with the “even”? That – to me at least – suggests there’s something unusual or surprising or odd about many not being in English, but Twitter’s a worldwide tool, so why should that be the case?

By: Twitted by stevebaker

Twitted by stevebaker — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:57:37 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by stevebaker [...]

By: All a -twitter « The moving finger

All a -twitter « The moving finger — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 02:04:00 +0000

[...] study is really shonky – I’d have been embarrassed to hand it in as an undergraduate. Stephen Dann has the best analysis – and if you read through the comments you can find one of the [...]

By: Pointless Babble Is In The Eye Of The Beholder | dv8-designs

Pointless Babble Is In The Eye Of The Beholder | dv8-designs — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:43:50 +0000

[...] there are all sorts of problems with this that have been raised by a bunch of people, starting with the methodology, but a bigger point is that the only really “pointless babble” is in trying to [...]

By: Twitted by hogan_michael

Twitted by hogan_michael — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:27:42 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by hogan_michael [...]