<div dir="ltr">This was interesting in this context: <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20130129/in-the-battle-of-more-data-vs-better-algorithms-better-data-beats-them-both">http://allthingsd.com/20130129/in-the-battle-of-more-data-vs-better-algorithms-better-data-beats-them-both</a> (the title says it all)</div>

<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>--<div>Alex</div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grvsmth@panix.com" target="_blank">grvsmth@panix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class="im">On 01/30/2013 06:09 AM, Krishnamurthy, Ramesh wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I agree that the quality of the primary data is important,<br>
<br>
but isn't the problem raised in the linked discussion<br>
<br>
the assumptions that were made about the primary data,<br>
<br>
i.e. the sample-population relationship,<br>
<br>
which led to misleading conclusions?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
    Oh, absolutely.  Often the data itself is fine, it just doesn't represent what the researchers claim it represents.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Angus B. Grieve-Smith</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<a href="mailto:grvsmth@panix.com" target="_blank">grvsmth@panix.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: <a href="http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/options/<u></u>corpora</a><br>
Corpora mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no" target="_blank">Corpora@uib.no</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/<u></u>listinfo/corpora</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>