Comments
Big Data: A Misguided Critique
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Re: big data
  • 4/15/2014 2:49:49 PM
NO RATINGS

That's a good reason to make sure your big-data analytics team includes someone with domain expertise!

Re: big data
  • 4/15/2014 2:37:00 PM
NO RATINGS

Beth, yes there is a risk. Specially in those organizations where the data derived is not understood well and its underlying assumptions. If the user well knows the process, the source and the data quality, he or she will certainly not get swayed away by drawing wrong decisions about the data.

Re: big data
  • 4/14/2014 6:42:19 PM
NO RATINGS

It's always a problem trying to get general audience articles to accurately reflect science or technical issues. I have some sympathy for the Times and the authors though for at least attempting to put forward some issues that the general non-technical public might raise own their own about big data issues.

Re: big data
  • 4/14/2014 8:59:54 AM
NO RATINGS

Some of the correlations presented here are too ridiculous to be looked at as serious flaws associated with big data, but the authors do make a valid point regarding big data not being a silver bullet. Absent common sense human involvement, do you think there is the danger of the results of big-data analytics taken as gospel, no matter how outrageous?

Re: big data
  • 4/12/2014 10:43:20 PM
NO RATINGS

I am surprised that the Times would publish something like this. I could see it from one of the websites that publish anything and everything, like Huff Post.

Not taking the bait
  • 4/12/2014 3:06:49 PM
NO RATINGS

I, too, am enjoying your indignation, Kim. Seems like these guys want Big Data and/or analytics to take into account (or permanently resolve) every human quirk and foible. That's sad and a little naive. But it also strikes me as a common game among academics to invent a non-issue like this and try to get us worked up about it. Nice try, gents.

Re: big data
  • 4/12/2014 5:30:49 AM
NO RATINGS

Kim, to me this seems to be a lack of understanding of the big data concepts. No critic should apparently have any reservations from big data itself. Pointing out weaknesses is a different story though. What the author didn't manage to appreciated is that the big data has the human element to it too. It is the human that must decide what to correlate with what.

Re: big data
  • 4/11/2014 5:25:41 PM
NO RATINGS

Kim, would you have been any less incensed if the blog appeared in USA Today! The lack of expertise is ridiculous. (Great post, by the way.)

Re: big data
  • 4/11/2014 1:04:50 PM
NO RATINGS

@Kim you have a right to be indignant about it.

Re: big data
  • 4/11/2014 12:32:38 PM
NO RATINGS

Yes Ariella, and it's an elementary principle of statistics. The Bradford Hill criteria will be 50 years old next year. The main reason for my rant was seeing two academics get a byline in the Times for such shallow thinking.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


INFORMATION RESOURCES
ANALYTICS IN ACTION
CARTERTOONS
VIEW ALL +
QUICK POLL
VIEW ALL +