Posts by steve black
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Don't put words in our mouths, Rob, in reply to Russell Brown,
I absolutely believe we should be measuring it. I did give it a +1 for trying out the Australian idea of collecting information.
Hey, I’m a statistician. If we don’t count stuff I’m out of work.
That may be the only lasting value to dumping this on the media. Forcing a reluctant government to actually collect the stats needed to assess the situation rather than make stuff up. That’s an improvement. But I wish the work had been written in such a way as to be evidence based, and focus on how we can’t assess things properly at present because we lack the evidence.
-
Yes Keith. Thank you. What follows is my take on the quality of the research which doesn’t even mention Chinese ethnicity nor Bayesian estimation…
Having been overseas (Australia) for a month and coming back in the middle of this saga, I feel that Rob scored an own goal on this one. Maybe that’s the Herald and Talkback Radio dragging down Rob’s writing, but Rob gave them their ammunition. And I hold him responsible for that.
In an effort to catch up, I read what was available and used the original score and ignore criteria (available for download)
I’d score Rob’s work as reported in the original Herald
as:
Just Observing People? fail – we don’t even have individual level data just aggregate stitched together from different sources. No causal interpretation possible.
Yet Another Single Study? fail – doesn’t draw in enough context, and doesn't directly measure the variables it tries to talk about.
Might there be a different explanation you aren’t told of? fail – lacks context of all the other factors which influence house prices and claims one is of “big influence” based on no direct evidence.
Small (sample)? fail: 45% coverage claimed, but not a representative sample that we know of, and it is a short time scale if you are comparing historical trends
Original Information Unavailable? fail. Problems with open access for other researchers to analyze. See also my questions further down on “weighting”.
Headline exaggerated? fail – mentions many things which are not even measured directly: Did not directly measure “investor” or “speculator” status nor “residency” nor “citizenship”.
No independent comment? independent comment sought from Nick Smith +1
Higher risk? fail (see my comments on what was actually measured in terms of different influences on price) as no effects estimated at all
Public Relations Puff? yes if you substitute political for public relations
Half the picture: fails to address lots of other variables needed to model factors influencing house prices. Only then can you talk about the unique contribution of overseas buyers on price (and possible interactions).
Unjustified Advice? advice from Murray Horton to “follow Australia”. Sound advice? Well, Australia has the same story running there so I’m not sure the “problem” is “fixed” by following Australia. +1
Relevance unclear? fail. Didn’t even manage to be explicit about whether they are talking house prices or numbers of sales. Is it volume or value of sales? It pays to be clear about your dependent variable.
which gives it 2 out of 12 (one point each for Nick Smith and Murray Horton which seems ironic but there you go) although it’s hard to say for sure. Which is why I linked the article and gave my scoring. That’s an ignore from me.
PS: I note that in the original Herald Article under the table Auckland House Buyers by Ethnicity is the little phrase: “NOTE: weighted by volume of sales per agent”. Has anybody else asked Rob to explain what that means? As readers of public address may remember I’m big on matters of the correct use of weighting as it can hide a multitude of estimation issues. May we have the unweighted figures please?
-
I hope this isn't going to develop into a case of
Progress is to Labour as ACT is to National
with parties running a two brand strategy.
-
Don't I see two people in that photo who are out of uniform? I've always felt that if uniforms are good for the students (for whatever the reasons they come up with) then the same uniforms should also be good for the staff, volunteers, principal, etc.
-
Hard News: Mediaworks: The only horizon…, in reply to Alfie,
I’ve recorded and watched the show five nights a week for years – I’m a “regular viewer”. But I don’t have a peoplemeter, so I don’t figure in Julie Christie’s world.
Only 600 households in NZ do have peoplemeters. When the general population was exhorted to tune in so the ratings would rise I kept wondering if anybody would point this out. Not that ratings actually inform decisions to close things down as we know with the bogus evidence spouted over the "need" to close TV7.
The NZ ratings game is pretty much a closed box and not really open to public scrutiny or competition. Sure anybody could come along and try, but best of luck asking to audit the system as an outsider.
The last time I paid attention to media measurement, the panel was originally set up by Peter Danaher, then Peter Danaher had the contract to oversee the maintenance of the panel (replace like families with like when they drop out for example) and Peter Danaher was the independent auditor of the panel. (For your amusement each of those links goes to a different instantiation of Peter Danaher. Maybe that's how he could both set up the panel and also be the independent auditor). Things may have changed since then. I worked for McNair Surveys as head of computing (bought out by Nielsen), and left just before the peoplemeters were being brought in.
I've been wondering about whether John Campbell might move into the web based videos/crowd funded domain if there isn't a public broadcasting (non commercial) niche left in TV. Or is there room on Maori TV? I've always felt they are the closest thing left to a public broadcaster for Aotearoa.
-
One of the interesting things to me about the way this budget was delivered is that the Government seems to have stepped away (slightly?) from the no surprises approach we have had for some years. I liked the no surprises approach.
The only reason I can see for keeping the extra $25 (maximum, some get nothing, some an in between amount) secret is to wrong foot the opposition for a day or two. Maybe I'm oversimplifying. I don't think it is worth giving up the advantage of the no surprises approach just to score a cheap political point.
The instant implementation and surprise removal of the $1000 kick start for Kiwisaver makes an interesting contrast to it taking them until next April Fool's day to cough up with the $25/wk.
-
Every time I hear “prosecute those evil people smugglers” the first thing that pops into my mind is “schindler’s list”. I can’t help it. It just bubbles to the surface.
There are times and places when moving people across bordera on a clandestine basis seems to have merit. Making it all black and white is an oversimplification.
-
Speaker: We don’t make the rules, we're…, in reply to John Holley,
Flawed investments are not the responsibility of the consumer to cover.
Actually, I think they might be under the government corporate welfare policy, but that's another TPPish topic entirely. :-)
We're trailing edge adopters of technology here. My household implementation of SVOD is we go to Videon and hire a DVD and watch it. Most TV is not of interest to us, and I'm happy to wait a decade or more after a series has finished before I even have a look. By then it has proved the test of time.
And yes we've used a VPN so that my daughter could communicate with us from behind the Great Firewall of China. For some reason China even had the University of Victoria web site blocked some time back. Go figure.
-
@ Russell (or anybody else who knows for sure)
So are we to believe that this show is really really really live and sent direct to air? I’m under the impression that what goes to air is filmed earlier (perhaps the same day, perhaps a 5 minute delay, perhaps 5 second delay) and edited before it goes to air. It needs to fit around commercial breaks and promos yet not lose pace (yes I know about the people who come out and keep the audience hyped up), Delayed a tad to handle things easily if the applause are slightly too long? A less than graceful camera change? A slower than planned changeover to get the next act on?
Really really really no small safety net?
If it is ever so slightly delayed, then there are there other people who are making choices (editor, director, producer) before a particular clip goes to air. Have we ruled that out?
I’d want that explored on Media Take please – should the matter happen to come up :)
Just curious.
Disclaimer: I’ve never watched the show nor heard of these people before. I don’t do talent shows, reality shows, or cooking contest shows.
-
So has anybody else mentioned Ben Elton’s 2006 book Chart Throb yet?
Check it out. Once you read it none of these sorts of TV shows will surprise you ever again.
Plot summary on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chart_Throb