« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: existence of bad pollsters

By: DigSpace in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 06 Nov 12 8:01 PM | 94 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 11400 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 11397 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

alea, I know that Nate uses a complex weighting method in his poll aggregations , which must totally irk the hell out of the polls trying to shift the average of the polls ... not a big deal when he was less followed, but a real thorn in their method when he is followed. They would have to become more random in their behavior as opposed to outright biased in order for him to not sniff them out.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: existence of bad pollsters
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Tue, 06 Nov 12 7:35 PM
Msg. 11397 of 54959

hi dig,

if google does it, then my guess is it is probably done by web search behaviour.

in general, it's still an early stage science.

but i am lazy. i leave it to the quants to figure out. in spite of what the pundits will tell you, he doesn't provide a simple average. for instance, he doesn't take a rasmussen poll at face value. he adjusts for the house effect (ie bias). i am pretty sure he also prioritises polling organisations. in his shoes, i would simply ignore data from folks who were consistently far off the mean.

by the way, sam wang at princeton has also adopted 332 this morning.

so now we have some quants at 303 and some at 332.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next