13 thoughts on “Dear Nate Silver: Hire Better Editors

  1. Yeah I don’t get it. Why not just show the step-wise R^2? Then we’d also have an idea of how meaningful the model is overall.Report

    1. From what I can tell, there were only 3 parameters in his model of three sets of incredibly complex numbers (that is, there is a ton of highly variable stuff that goes into producing those numbers). I can’t imagine the r2’s would have been very high, or telling. This sort of model is perfectly OK if you’re just trying to get a sense of something before you delve into it deeper. I wouldn’t write an article about it, though. I’d just keep it to myself when I built a better one.Report

  2. I’m disappointed with fivethirtyeight thus far. Little in it holds up to the excellent writing in Silver’s book or his writing at the NYT; and much feels so factoid and separate from human stuff as to be bone dry dry dry.

    But Ezra Kline’s Vox has been a joy to watch. I’m particularly fond of the whole ‘card’ notion — that you can keep building on a story in this way, making the older info readily available so that the whole thing is part of a whole, is a beautiful thing.Report

    1. If it was even factoid based I’d be less critical. This isn’t factoids or dryness, this is INNUMERATE factoids.

      Nate Silver promised us Bill James crossed with Edward R. Murrow. He gave us Skip Bayless crossed with Dan Brown numerology.Report

Comments are closed.