1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.lang.cobol

  • Re: Is mighty COBOL a fortune teller?

    From docdwarf@docdwarf@panix.com () to comp.lang.cobol on Thu May 24 18:12:44 2018
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

    In article <fmkbvdFmonU1@mid.individual.net>,
    pete dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
    On 23/05/2018 8:07 AM, Kellie Fitton wrote:

    [snip]

    One can still get problems even with the best data. Garbage in,
    garbage out. Predictive analytics are risky by nature, they are
    valid as long as the input data are also valid.

    Sadly, no, they are not.

    Mr Dashwood, it seems that folks no longer study the Hawthorne effect.

    DD
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From pete dashwood@dashwood@enternet.co.nz to comp.lang.cobol on Fri May 25 12:42:51 2018
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

    On 25/05/2018 6:12 AM, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
    In article <fmkbvdFmonU1@mid.individual.net>,
    pete dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
    On 23/05/2018 8:07 AM, Kellie Fitton wrote:

    [snip]

    One can still get problems even with the best data. Garbage in,
    garbage out. Predictive analytics are risky by nature, they are
    valid as long as the input data are also valid.

    Sadly, no, they are not.

    Mr Dashwood, it seems that folks no longer study the Hawthorne effect.

    DD

    Sorry Doc, not sure of your allusion here. My position has been
    consistent throughout the thread (whether it was observed or not... :-)):

    "Don't trust the results of analytics."

    (This could change in a few years but, for now at least, that's my
    position on it.)

    Pete.
    --
    I used to write COBOL; now I can do anything...
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From docdwarf@docdwarf@panix.com () to comp.lang.cobol on Fri May 25 01:59:56 2018
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.cobol

    In article <fmp4gfF3fonU1@mid.individual.net>,
    pete dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
    On 25/05/2018 6:12 AM, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
    In article <fmkbvdFmonU1@mid.individual.net>,
    pete dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
    On 23/05/2018 8:07 AM, Kellie Fitton wrote:

    [snip]

    One can still get problems even with the best data. Garbage in,
    garbage out. Predictive analytics are risky by nature, they are
    valid as long as the input data are also valid.

    Sadly, no, they are not.

    Mr Dashwood, it seems that folks no longer study the Hawthorne effect.

    Sorry Doc, not sure of your allusion here. My position has been
    consistent throughout the thread (whether it was observed or not... :-)):

    "Don't trust the results of analytics."

    Is that an assertion based on experience? Seriously... the Hawthorne
    effect is that the results you get might not be the results you seek;
    having studied this might prevent someone from posting that 'predictive analytics are valid as long as the input data are valid'.

    DD
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114