Interesting data, but wrong analysis.
on
More iTunes Math
·
· Score: 1
I have to say that while the aim of the article is quite admirable, the author does a horrible job of analyzing the data he collects, and he completely misses an anomaly of interest.
His conclusion that "only for tracks rated 1-19" do ratings of finer granularity matter is bogus. Ignore figure 5 and look at every other figure in the article. It's not linear from 1-19 either. It shows the same step behavior as the rest of the graph. He mistook an anomalous edge case for some sort of liner relationship. The *actual* interesting piece of information that can be taken from the data collected is that, whether intentionally or not, the algorithm Apple uses has an odd (again, I don't say erroneous since it's possible that it's intentional) edge case. The play count difference between two songs where one has a rating one star higher is around 2000-2500. However, between no stars and one star, the rating difference is 3700. Without more information (and a Mac of my own to investigate myself), it's not clear what's going on. The author states that the 0-100 rating gets integer-divided by 20, which makes sense except that that's not what the data in the graph reflects since a rating of 0 yields a significantly different playcount from a rating of 1. In fact, neither a strict ceiling or floor explains the data generated, especially since the rating is discretized to a five-star rating.
Here's my point in summary. If iTunes integrally divides or floors the rating, then where does the extra step when the rating is between 1 and 19 incluseive come from?
Mossberg makes some good points on the disadvantages of GMail, even if some of them have been known for a long time. The contact system is clunky. Not all the options and features are intuitively located in the GMail interface. (Why do they call the headers and actions I can take with an email "More Options"?) However, Mossberg says and implies some things that are blatantly false. He seems to imply at multiple points in the article that Yahoo! uses better technology than GMail when they both use what is essentially AJAX. Furthermore, he says that Google forces "labels" upon people when everyone is used to "folders". The one advantage folders have is that you can have subfolders. Labels allow for emails to be listed under multiple groupings. Saying one is clearly superior to the other is a stretch at best.
He also doesn't allow for the fact that Yahoo! has had a user account system for over a decade, whereas Google's first system requiring accounts is GMail. He complains that Yahoo! lets you pay a yearly fee for more space and no ads while Google provides no choice. Despite Google being the "it" company right now, they are still nascent in this area compared to the likes of Yahoo!. Even they need time to catch up. Also, how does Google make money? Advertising. Targeted adverts generate the vast majority of their revenue. It's difficult to shift away from the one thing that generates all their money. (I'm intentionally excluding IPOs here. In other words, I'm discussing money generated through goods and services offered to consumers.)
Does GMail provide far fewer options then the new Yahoo! Mail? Yes. But it's a week old. GMail sparked a new generation of webmail. Now Yahoo! has struck back. Give time for Google to respond. If Yahoo! Mail wasn't better than GMail in more than one respect, they wouldn't have begun public beta testing of it. Give Google a chance to respond.
But, in all fairness, two main criticisms of Google remain true. Not enough options for the user (bordering on arrogance according to some) and the fact that most software they have remains in beta. If they can improve on those two problems, they'll be an even greater force to be reckoned with.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say that while the aim of the article is quite admirable, the author does a horrible job of analyzing the data he collects, and he completely misses an anomaly of interest.
His conclusion that "only for tracks rated 1-19" do ratings of finer granularity matter is bogus. Ignore figure 5 and look at every other figure in the article. It's not linear from 1-19 either. It shows the same step behavior as the rest of the graph. He mistook an anomalous edge case for some sort of liner relationship. The *actual* interesting piece of information that can be taken from the data collected is that, whether intentionally or not, the algorithm Apple uses has an odd (again, I don't say erroneous since it's possible that it's intentional) edge case. The play count difference between two songs where one has a rating one star higher is around 2000-2500. However, between no stars and one star, the rating difference is 3700. Without more information (and a Mac of my own to investigate myself), it's not clear what's going on. The author states that the 0-100 rating gets integer-divided by 20, which makes sense except that that's not what the data in the graph reflects since a rating of 0 yields a significantly different playcount from a rating of 1. In fact, neither a strict ceiling or floor explains the data generated, especially since the rating is discretized to a five-star rating.
Here's my point in summary. If iTunes integrally divides or floors the rating, then where does the extra step when the rating is between 1 and 19 incluseive come from?
Mossberg makes some good points on the disadvantages of GMail, even if some of them have been known for a long time. The contact system is clunky. Not all the options and features are intuitively located in the GMail interface. (Why do they call the headers and actions I can take with an email "More Options"?) However, Mossberg says and implies some things that are blatantly false. He seems to imply at multiple points in the article that Yahoo! uses better technology than GMail when they both use what is essentially AJAX. Furthermore, he says that Google forces "labels" upon people when everyone is used to "folders". The one advantage folders have is that you can have subfolders. Labels allow for emails to be listed under multiple groupings. Saying one is clearly superior to the other is a stretch at best.
He also doesn't allow for the fact that Yahoo! has had a user account system for over a decade, whereas Google's first system requiring accounts is GMail. He complains that Yahoo! lets you pay a yearly fee for more space and no ads while Google provides no choice. Despite Google being the "it" company right now, they are still nascent in this area compared to the likes of Yahoo!. Even they need time to catch up. Also, how does Google make money? Advertising. Targeted adverts generate the vast majority of their revenue. It's difficult to shift away from the one thing that generates all their money. (I'm intentionally excluding IPOs here. In other words, I'm discussing money generated through goods and services offered to consumers.)
Does GMail provide far fewer options then the new Yahoo! Mail? Yes. But it's a week old. GMail sparked a new generation of webmail. Now Yahoo! has struck back. Give time for Google to respond. If Yahoo! Mail wasn't better than GMail in more than one respect, they wouldn't have begun public beta testing of it. Give Google a chance to respond.
But, in all fairness, two main criticisms of Google remain true. Not enough options for the user (bordering on arrogance according to some) and the fact that most software they have remains in beta. If they can improve on those two problems, they'll be an even greater force to be reckoned with.