Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Rubric for IT Analysis

Posted by timothy on from the useful-heuristics dept.

Aredridel writes "Zed A. Shaw has an insightful article on how analyses of software systems should be performed, and how they're often done wrong. It should be required reading for all IT journalists, and all readers of IT journals."

2 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Lying with statistics by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The author of the rubric "carefully" lists examples of things that ought to be seen -- and then carefully extracts two graphs from a long analysis in order to "prove" his claim. Never mind that the things he argues one should look for would be embedded in the materials and metods or results section, not the conclusion or the paper summary. Never mind, either, that his objections are bogus (red versus black ink? Uh, wait -- if the winning system had been shown in red, it would have conveyed how burningly fast the system was.)

    Oh, wait -- it's somewhich which shows that samba 3.0 is slower than w2k3. Never mind. This is slashdot, so the ditors have gotta troll for ad views.

  2. Good article by bobbis.u · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Perhaps the author of the Openoffice.org vs MS Office comparison should have read it first.

    I hate it when people lie with statistics. Even the BBC did it recently when they were trying to justify 1 million GBP on their new weather program. They said 7/10 people either liked the new system the same as the old one or preferred the new one. Perhaps they could also have said 9/10 liked the new system the same as the old one or preferred the old one? Who knows when you lump categories together like that without providing the raw data?