Comments on: Monday Morning Links: January 14th, 2008 http://tropophilia.com/2008/01/13/monday-morning-links-january-14th-2008/ the love of change Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:01:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Joel Hewett http://tropophilia.com/2008/01/13/monday-morning-links-january-14th-2008/#comment-62 Joel Hewett Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:54:28 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=52#comment-62 Interesting additional point to the notion of using online traffic as a polling method of sorts: the professional bookies are betting on Clinton as the big winner: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/online-bookies-peg-clinto_n_81314.html. Ireland's biggest betting house, Paddy Power (which has a massive and truly almost-instutional presence on the island), has also already begun to pay out cash on those who placed bets on Clinton! Now that's in euros, mind you! Interesting additional point to the notion of using online traffic as a polling method of sorts: the professional bookies are betting on Clinton as the big winner: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/online-bookies-peg-clinto_n_81314.html.

Ireland’s biggest betting house, Paddy Power (which has a massive and truly almost-instutional presence on the island), has also already begun to pay out cash on those who placed bets on Clinton! Now that’s in euros, mind you!

]]> By: Taylor http://tropophilia.com/2008/01/13/monday-morning-links-january-14th-2008/#comment-61 Taylor Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:01:43 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=52#comment-61 Ja'Red, if you follow the link, you'll see that they were in fact tracking New Hampshire voters AND even micro-targeted women. And you'll get no argument from me that what they're TRYING to measure is voter interest...I just don't know that they're capturing it in a way that's statistically rigorous or not hopelessly correlated with a bunch of other (potentially more important) factors. Ja’Red, if you follow the link, you’ll see that they were in fact tracking New Hampshire voters AND even micro-targeted women.

And you’ll get no argument from me that what they’re TRYING to measure is voter interest…I just don’t know that they’re capturing it in a way that’s statistically rigorous or not hopelessly correlated with a bunch of other (potentially more important) factors.

]]> By: Jarred http://tropophilia.com/2008/01/13/monday-morning-links-january-14th-2008/#comment-60 Jarred Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:25:29 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=52#comment-60 Another thought: unless they were also tracking the location from which people were searching (this data is easily available - even we can track visitor location on this blog), the Yahoo Buzz scores reflect nationwide searches, not just New Hampshire ones. Another thought: unless they were also tracking the location from which people were searching (this data is easily available – even we can track visitor location on this blog), the Yahoo Buzz scores reflect nationwide searches, not just New Hampshire ones.

]]> By: Jarred http://tropophilia.com/2008/01/13/monday-morning-links-january-14th-2008/#comment-59 Jarred Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:23:35 +0000 http://tropophilia.com/?p=52#comment-59 I wonder if the spike in Clinton-related and the dissipation of Obama-related traffic is simply correlated to the media "tide" pattern happening during that period. Obama hadn't done or said anything especially remarkable that I can remember (indeed, his strategy was deemed to be simply "riding the wave" of Iowa), and so it makes sense perhaps that interest in his campaign started to fade going into New Hampshire. Clinton, on the other hand, was for better or for worse the media darling between Iowa and New Hampshire. Everyone made such a big deal about the walloping she took in Iowa, so naturally they wanted to watch what she would do to try to rally. And then of course there was the whole crying thing that made the breaking news of almost every major news website. I count myself among probably hundreds of thousands who were searching for the video of her crying that day, but that doesn't mean I was planning to vote for her. While I think the "data" they refer to is both important and interesting, I think the best we can really conclude is that the "buzz" factor reported by Yahoo! is really just about voter <i>interest</i> rather than voter <i>choice</i>. Anyone have other thoughts? I wonder if the spike in Clinton-related and the dissipation of Obama-related traffic is simply correlated to the media “tide” pattern happening during that period. Obama hadn’t done or said anything especially remarkable that I can remember (indeed, his strategy was deemed to be simply “riding the wave” of Iowa), and so it makes sense perhaps that interest in his campaign started to fade going into New Hampshire. Clinton, on the other hand, was for better or for worse the media darling between Iowa and New Hampshire. Everyone made such a big deal about the walloping she took in Iowa, so naturally they wanted to watch what she would do to try to rally. And then of course there was the whole crying thing that made the breaking news of almost every major news website. I count myself among probably hundreds of thousands who were searching for the video of her crying that day, but that doesn’t mean I was planning to vote for her.

While I think the “data” they refer to is both important and interesting, I think the best we can really conclude is that the “buzz” factor reported by Yahoo! is really just about voter interest rather than voter choice.

Anyone have other thoughts?

]]>