I'm afraid I just padded the statistics of google with a Naruto search. I didn't know what it was, and now I do, I fail to see it's relevance when compared to Obama.
Curious though; is Obama being searched in the same way as Alba et al (i.e. for pr0n)? And is this Brittany Spears any better than Britney?
@stoneagedan: I should add, I think they're all irrelevant compared to the US president; aren't people paying attention to current affairs that don't involve botox?
Well, as your sister site Gizmodo posted in February of this year, "poor people use yahoo". All you have to do is go to Yahoo Answers to see that their main audience are poorly educated, generally ignorant, and predominantly Republican.
Here's the demographic info for Yahoo v. Google users:
@GunSilence: What Gunsilence said. What an asinine statement to make. Idiots will surface on the internet anywhere, especially if you make it fairly easy for them to voice their opinions, hatred, ignorance, etc. So are YouTube users all hateful idiots too? Judging by a lot of comments there, I guess you could make that idiotic conclusion, too.
@SansSanity: That only applies when you infer a general statement from a smaller sample size, i.e. if you make a survey of 1000 americans in order to tell something about all americans.
Even in that case you can calculate the "confidence interval", i.e. there's a measurement of the possible error.
In this case, this is not the case. Yahoo did not "sample", they just listed their most searched terms in total, and did not infer a general statement from a smaller sample size.
That's the same if you just asked ALL americans in a survey (of course that's impossible, but just imagine if), instead of just a smaller-than-US-population sample. In that case, you would have a confidence interval of 100%, which means your statement would be accurate to the generality.
@tokugawa: You are right in the respect that they did not make an inference based on the data..
But I was coming from this direction: because more people using Yahoo search looked for Runescape, doesn't mean it is more popular than *insert random celebrity*. Now Google and yahoo combined would add upto probably 90% of all searches (with Google bringing up about 2-3rds of that), so if the combined data showed the same results, then we will have to agree with the data..
12/01/08
07/27/09
12/01/08
07/27/09
12/01/08
12/01/08
12/01/08
12/01/08
12/01/08
Curious though; is Obama being searched in the same way as Alba et al (i.e. for pr0n)? And is this Brittany Spears any better than Britney?
12/01/08
12/01/08
Here's the demographic info for Yahoo v. Google users:
[cache.gizmodo.com]
12/01/08
12/02/08
12/01/08
You know how statistics tells you high sample size is essential for a low error... apparently the error makes Runescape its abode
12/01/08
Even in that case you can calculate the "confidence interval", i.e. there's a measurement of the possible error.
In this case, this is not the case. Yahoo did not "sample", they just listed their most searched terms in total, and did not infer a general statement from a smaller sample size.
That's the same if you just asked ALL americans in a survey (of course that's impossible, but just imagine if), instead of just a smaller-than-US-population sample. In that case, you would have a confidence interval of 100%, which means your statement would be accurate to the generality.
12/01/08
But I was coming from this direction: because more people using Yahoo search looked for Runescape, doesn't mean it is more popular than *insert random celebrity*. Now Google and yahoo combined would add upto probably 90% of all searches (with Google bringing up about 2-3rds of that), so if the combined data showed the same results, then we will have to agree with the data..