Problem retrieving data from Twitter

Hack4Congress Identifies Tech Ideas to improve Cooperation

Reposted from this post on the Civil Politics Blog

While there is a lot of research on many variables that increase inter-group civility, a large number of them can be grouped under the general category of improving cooperation/reducing competition (see lit review here).  As such, I was particularly interested to read about #Hack4Congress‘ work that attempted to find technological solutions to improve cooperation.  Among the winning ideas were 2 that specifically related to improving cooperation:

DICO is designed to allow other systems to access and incorporate the information provided by DICO to enhance other institutional processes of Congress through a central database.  Using DICO, a system can identify cross-partisan coalitions that are based on shared interest in particular issues.

The Dear Colleague website is an alternative to the eDear Colleague mailing system currently used by Members of Congress to request other members to co-sign letters, brief them on happenings on the Hill and send voting alerts. As opposed to the current system that functions primarily as a bulk mailing list, our website enables collaborative law making…

You can read more about the winners and contest here.  Social psychology teaches us that the mere desire to cooperate doesn’t always win out over situational barriers.  Improving cooperation may be a stated desire of both parties, but actual cooperation may require the creation of new tools that facilitate a cooperative environment, such as those identified in this project.

- Ravi Iyer

Go to Source

Comments

comments

Making Politics Less Personal

Reposted from this post on the Civil Politics Blog

Recently, Thomas Edsall wrote an interesting essay in the New York Times covering work done by various academics, including Jonathan Haidt, who is one of the founders of Civil Politics.  In this article, Edsall suggests that:

The work of Iyengar, Talhelm and Haidt adds a new layer to the study of polarization. In seminal work, scholars like Nolan McCarty, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, political scientists at Princeton, Yale and Berkeley, respectively, have stressed the key role of external factors in deepening our political schism, including inequality, the nationalization of politics, immigration and the fast approaching moment when whites will no longer be in the majority.

There are many factors that contribute to polarization and certainly these political factors are part of the equation.  Yet the intuitionist view that we have found evidence for at Civil Politics, suggests that the reasons we see increasing personal polarization is less a result of political or economic factors and more at the level of the personal.  Indeed, such vitriol is not just found in politics, but also in completely artificial settings like sports.  These political factors can all be boiled down to a single personal factor, that also exists in the sports realm: group competition.  Given this, our view would be more in line with what Iyengar suggested to Edsall in the article:

In an email exchange, Iyengar speculated on a number of reasons for the increase in polarization:

Residential neighborhoods are politically homogeneous as are social media networks. I suspect this is one of the principal reasons for the significantly increased rate of same-party marriages. In 1965, a national survey of married couples showed around sixty-five percent agreement among couples. By 2010, the agreement rate was near 90 percent.

The result, according to Iyengar, is that “since inter-personal contact across the party divide is infrequent, it is easier for people to buy into the caricatures and stereotypes of the out party and its supporters.”

Competition, whether for racial equality or the NFL championship, is going to lead to personal negative feelings and without the balancing factor of other positive personal relations, you get the kind of intense dislike described in the article.  In that way, politics is a sport just like any other.

- Ravi Iyer

 

Go to Source

Comments

comments

Mashable mashes up Ranker Data on the Patriots vs. Seahawks

Reposted from this post on the Ranker Data Blog

Did you know that Patriots fans are far more likely to be fans of Pulp Fiction and The Departed on our Best Movies of All Time list?  Ranker knows millions of such facts (see our twitter account for more) and Mashable recently took a subset of those facts as related to the teams in the Super Bowl and presented them in this article.

mashable

– Ravi Iyer

The post Mashable mashes up Ranker Data on the Patriots vs. Seahawks appeared first on The Ranker.com Blog.

Go to Source

Comments

comments

Tracking Votes to Measure Changing Opinions

Reposted from this post on the Ranker Data Blog

A key part of any Ranker list are the votes are associated with each item, counting how often a user has given that item the “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”. These votes measure people’s opinions about politics, movies, celebrities, music, sports, and all of the other issues Ranker lists cover.

A natural question is how the opinions that votes measure relate to external assessments. As an example, we considered the The Most Dangerous Cities in America list. Forbes magazine lists the top 10 as Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Memphis, Birmingham, Atlanta, Baltimore, Stockton, Cleveland, and Buffalo.

The graph below show the proportion of up-votes, evolving over time up towards the end of last year, for all of the cities voted on by Ranker users. Eight of the Forbes’ list are included, and are highlighted. They are all in the top half of the worst cities in the list, and Detroit is correctly placed clearly as the overall worst city. Only Stockton and Buffalo, at positions 8 and 10 on the Forbes list, are missing. There is considerable agreement between the expert opinion from Forbes’ analysis, and the voting patterns of Ranker users.

MostDangerousCitiesAmerica

Because Ranker votes are recorded as they happen, they can potentially also track changes in people’s opinions. To test this possibility, we turned to a pop-culture topic that has generated a lot of votes. The Walking Dead is the most watched drama series telecast in basic cable history, with 17.3 million viewers tuning in to watch the season 5 premiere. With such a large fan base of zombie lovers and characters regularly dying left and right, there is a lot of interest in The Walking Dead Season 5 Death Pool list.

The figure below shows the pattern of change in the proportion of up-votes for the characters in this list, and highlights three people. For the first four seasons, Gareth had been one of the main antagonists and survivors on the show. His future as a survivor became unclear in an October 13th episode where Rick vowed to kill Gareth with a machete and Gareth, undeterred, simply laughed at the threat. Two episodes later on October 26th, Rick fulfilled his promise and killed Gareth using the machete While Gareth apparently did not take the threat seriously, the increase in up-votes for Gareth during this time makes it clear many viewers did.

WalkingDeadDeathPool

A second highlighted character, Gabriel, is a priest introduced in the latest season of the October 19th episode. Upon his arrival, Rick has already expressed his distrust in the priest and threatened that, if his own sins ends up hurting his family, it will be Gabriel who has to face the consequences. Since Rick is a man of many sins, the threat seems to be real. Ranker voters agree, as shown by the jump in up-votes around mid-October, coinciding with Gabriel’s arrival on the show.

The votes also sometimes tell us who has a good chance of surviving. Carol Peletier had been a mainstay in the season, but was kidnapped in the October 19th episode and did not appear in the following episode. She briefly appeared again in the subsequent episode, only to be rendered unconscious. Despite the ambiguity surrounding her survival, her proportion of up-votes decreased significantly, perhaps driven by her mention by another character, which provided a sort of “spoiler” hinting at survival.

While these two examples are just suggestive, the enormous number of votes made by Ranker uses, and the variety of topics they cover, makes the possibility of measuring opinions, and detecting and understanding change in opinions, an intriguing one. If there were a list of “Research uses for Ranker data”, we would give this item a clear thumbs up.

 

– Emily Liu and Michael Lee

The post Tracking Votes to Measure Changing Opinions appeared first on The Ranker.com Blog.

Go to Source

Comments

comments

Characteristics of people who are not annoyed by Bill O’Reilly

Reposted from this post on the Ranker Data Blog

On today’s The O’Reilly Factor (video below), Bill O’Reilly lamented the fact that he was only #10 on Ranker’s Most Annoying TV Hosts list and decided that he would make it his New Year’s Resolution to become the #1 most annoying person on our list. While I may not share O’Reilly’s politics, I like him as a person, even as he does annoy me from time to time, and would like to help him reach his goals. I enjoy working with the Ranker dataset as it lets me answer very specific questions, like whether people who think the show 24 is overrated are also convinced that George W. Bush was a terrible person—or, in this case, I can study the people who specifically disagree that O’Reilly is annoying, in the hopes that O’Reilly can find these people and work to annoy them more.


Who does O’Reilly need to work harder to annoy? From our opinion graph of 20+ million edges, (so named because we can connect not only vague “likes” or “interests,” but specifically whether someone thinks something is best, worst, hot, annoying, overrated, etc.), we have hundreds of specific opinions that characterize people who don’t find O’Reilly annoying. Here are a chosen few findings about these people:

People who are NOT annoyed by O’Reilly tend to…
– find liberals like Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, and Bill Maher annoying.
– believe that John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart are among the Best Actors in Film History.
– enjoy movies like The Sound of Music and Toy Story.
– watch America’s Got Talent, Cops, Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch, Home Improvement, and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.
– listen to Lynyrd Skynyrd, Boston, and Elvis.
– enjoy comedians like Bob Hope, Jeff Foxworthy, Joan Rivers, and Billy Crystal.
– be attracted to  Carrie Underwood, Jessica Simpson, Brooklyn Decker, and Sarah Palin.

Thanks to big data, these audiences are all readily targetable online—and if O’Reilly really wants to annoy these people, he might want to study our biggest pet peeves list for ideas (e.g. chewing with his mouth open might work on TV). We hope this list will help O’Reilly with his ambitions for 2015, and please do reach out to us if you need more market research on how to annoy people more.

– Ravi Iyer

The post Characteristics of people who are not annoyed by Bill O’Reilly appeared first on The Ranker.com Blog.

Go to Source

Comments

comments

The Opinion Graph Connections between 24, George W. Bush, Jack Bauer, and Rachel Maddow.

Reposted from this post on the Ranker Data Blog

As someone whose roots are in political psychology, I’m always interested in seeing how the Ranker dataset shows how our values are reflected in our entertainment choices.  We’ve seen many instances where politicians have cited 24 in the case for or against torture, but are politics reflected in attitudes toward 24 amongst the public?  Using data from users who have voted on multiple Ranker lists, including our lists polling for The Worst Person in History, the Greatest TV Characters of All-Time, the most Overrated TV shows and The Biggest Hollywood Douchebags, the clear answer is yes.

People who think George W. Bush is one of the worst people in history, also tend to think that 24 is one of the most overrated TV shows of all-time.

People who think Bush is a terrible person also think 24 is overrated.
People who think Bush is a terrible person also think 24 is overrated.

…and people who think Jack Bauer is one of the best TV Characters of All-Time also think that Rachel Maddow is one of Hollywood’s Biggest Douchebags.

maddowvsjackbauer
People who think Jack Bauer is a great TV character also think Rachel Maddow is a douchebag.

– Ravi Iyer

ps. …and these are just a few of the relationships between 24 and politicians in our opinion graph, which all tell the same basic story.

The post The Opinion Graph Connections between 24, George W. Bush, Jack Bauer, and Rachel Maddow. appeared first on The Ranker.com Blog.

Go to Source

Comments

comments

A2Ethics Mixes Beer with Ethics for Non-Partisan Fun and Civil Debate

Reposted from this post on the Civil Politics Blog

CivilPolitics’ mission is to educate the public on evidence-based methods for improving inter-group dialogue, with evidence defined broadly to include academic studies, empirical studies of community interventions, and also the practical wisdom learned by organizations that are bringing people together in the community.  As part of this last area of evidence, we are asking our partners in the community to answer a set of semi-standardized questions designed to help us learn the common themes that run through successful community work.  If you would like to have your organizations’ work profiled, please do contact us and/or fill out this form.  This is the first post in this series,  where Jeanine DeLay, President of A2Ethics.org, shares lessons learned from her organizations’ work.

What is the organization/group that you represent? What is it’s history in terms of getting involved with improving community relationships?

A2Ethics.org (A2 is a commonly used acronym for Ann Arbor, Michigan), is a nonprofit organization, founded in 2008 to introduce and provide opportunities to talk over community issues through an ethics lens, in addition to or instead of, the usual political and economic lenses characterizing public discussions today.

What specific programs/events/curriculum do you run? Briefly describe what it is you do.

A2Ethics’ signature event is the Big Ethical Question Slam, a competition we made up. The Slam is now celebrating its 5th year–it has become a very popular annual community get-together. In addition, the Slam has appeared in other communities. It hasn’t “gone viral,” but we know of Slams planned for cities in New York, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. And at least one other city has integrated a Big Ethical Question Slam into its community life: Winnipeg, Manitoba. In fact, in 2015, the winner of the Ann Arbor Slam is going to pair off against the winner of the Winnipeg Slam, when A2Ethics and the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties, co-sponsor and simulcast the first International Slam-off.

Since our beginnings, A2Ethics has been committed to intergenerational programs, exhibits and events. Further, we do our best to present ethics issues in artful, inventive, open-minded and nonpolarizing ways through collaborations, outreach, and “social weaving” networks.  In November 2013, the Ann Arbor City Council passed the city’s first ever ethics education resolution. This resolution came from efforts by A2Ethics to educate residents about the importance of establishing a basic ethics policy for elected officials in our community. We spearheaded this effort through a series of podcasts called City & Local Ethics.  In February 2014, A2Ethics organized the first Michigan High School Ethics Bowl. Modeled after High School Ethics Bowl competitions in 18 states, the event was co-sponsored with our partners from the University of Michigan Department of Philosophy Outreach Program. The Bowl featured seven student teams from four local high schools who studied and talked over a diverse set of ethics case studies written by local community leaders and professionals.

What has worked well in your programs/events? If someone else wanted to replicate your programs, what specific advice would you give them as far as things to do to replicate your successes?

Recommendations about what has worked well:

1. We try to co-sponsor all of our events and programs with other local organizations. This increases the chance of success–from promotion to participation.

2. With respect to one specific event, The Big Ethical Question Slam, the following practices have been successful:
a. The venue is at an Irish pub. We promote the Slam as a “thinking and drinking” event.

b. The Celtic room (where the Slam is held) only holds 120 people. We believe the intimacy of the room, and the amateur nature of the competition help to make it a welcoming venue for talking about big and controversial subjects. The Slam is also in February–usually a cold night in Michigan. This means only those interested come. We have had the opportunity to move to a larger venue, which would expand the audience, but we have decided to keep it small. We think the attendance limit helps promote civility and convivial discussions too.

c. We try to infuse humor into the evening. Our prizes include a philosopher’s hat–which is really a wizard’s pointy hat (similar to the sorting hat from the Harry Potter stories). The philosopher’s hat is amazingly popular (who knew?); the winning team takes it to their office or school where it is on display for the year. Likewise, the second place team wins a philosopher refrigerator magnet, e.g., Plato, Confucius. These too are strangely coveted. (I don’t want to overdo this!!) Finally, we try to include a few questions (not usually from the public, but ones we make up) that are amusing. An example is one that we took from our friends who created the Winnipeg Slam. They included a series of “zombie” questions the judges had to answer at the end of the competition.

d. Having individuals from nonprofit and for-profit organizations participate as teams brings together people from those organizations to talk about issues they normally wouldn’t discuss. So, the Slam has a team-building function. Second, the organizations competing in the team do not routinely interact. This affords the opportunity to meet people from organizations with different missions and purposes.

e. Audience participation in the Slam, through a scoring card and their role in giving The People’s Choice Award, has had one unexpected benefit. While teams are conferring on a question, the audience members, some of whom do not know the person sitting next to them, are doing the same. We find this to be the most beneficial outcome of the Slam, because the conversations appear to be civil and good- humored.

f. The rules are deliberation rather than debate-oriented. No team gets to respond to the same question. This rule and the fact that teams do not get to rebut or take one position that is, in turn, critiqued by other teams has helped to prevent the event from becoming an occasion for partisan grandstanding and ideological obstinacy. To be sure, this is just a guess!

What have you tried in your progams/events that has NOT worked well? If someone else wanted to replicate your programs, what advice would you give them as far as things to AVOID doing?

I would like to parse this question–and separate what we think has not worked well in our efforts with the Slam from what it we think it is important to avoid. I think we would like to be bolder in our approach. We are not seeking to chill or avoid discussions. First, while the event is intergenerational (which is positive), we would very much like to be more inclusive in our team outreach in order to make the event–and even our questions–more racially, economically and politically diverse. For example, we have done a cursory examination of economist Esther Duflo’s work on the decisions that poor people confront in their daily lives. We wonder what kinds of questions we might receive that would be different? Perhaps none. The point is this: when we get a question such as, whether favela tourism is ethical?–how might those who live in a favela answer?

Second, we would like to encourage more than one night of community discussion when ethics matters–actually matter. Is it easier to be civil for just one night? We would like to know.

Third, we live in a one-party enclave. For example, the city of Ann Arbor is electing a new mayor in 2014. The real race, which was contested, occurred in August when there were four contenders in the Democratic primary. Ann Arbor, like other electoral districts in our country, is increasingly a safe haven for one party. Most significantly, only 16% of the registered voters in Ann Arbor actually voted in the primary. This means that only about 14,000 of 90,000 voters are participating in the decision about who leads the city and sets policies that impact all residents. Why is this important for the Slam and for the organization of events like it? The point is that events such as the Slam can try and increase civility, but is the Slam really doing anything other than reinforcing the beliefs of individuals who are already like-minded? And is it the kind of event that increases not just civility, but strengthens civic engagement–such that more voters are going to the polls? Indeed, will an increase in civility, in turn, increase civic engagement? We are interested in learning about this–and we would like to know if we are confused and conflating issues that are really quite different.

Finally (and related to the previous point), we are very interested in teasing out what makes the event a popular ‘success” in our community from what makes for a civil engagement “success.” We haven’t a clue.

These are all reasons we are very enthused about networking with CivilPolitics.org, learning about and even being a part of the research in which your group is engaged.

Regarding what has not worked well, we offer this list:

Overall, in the Big Ethical Question Slam, we have learned good questions, great judges and informed knowledge about a question topic are critical to the likelihood the event will be considered a community success.

1. Problem questions

a.We do not accept questions about abortion or capital punishment.

b.If there are too many “political” questions in a given evening, there are complaints about the meaning of an ethics question v. a political question. For example, if there are too many questions such as: why shouldn’t we regard the purchase of health care insurance by everyone as a civic duty?–as opposed to–is it ethical for a real estate agent to represent both the buyer and the seller? then participants will let us know afterwards and in our feedback queries.

At the same time, if we mix the two carefully, participants do not object. We have not always done a very good job of comingling. We don’t think it necessary to balance them as journalists often do–that is, to get “two sides.” We think, however, it is very hard to discern what audiences consider “political.” That said, we also think that current political questions (featured in the news), alert the “political police” in our audiences. An example would be a question we had about drones and whether their use was ethical in war. The team receiving that question seemed hesitant to respond. When the team speaker did respond, some in the audience hissed. What to do? We would like to be prepared to respond to this potential reaction in the future.

c.Since we solicit questions from the public, sometimes the questions are poorly worded or barely coherent. We have taken two approaches– editing them, or alternatively, leaving them largely unedited. Everyone agrees that all questions should be edited, and where possible, condensed and shortened.

2. Problem Judges

a. If judges are too opinionated in their comments, the audience balks. If judges, however, offer many sides and assist a team with their knowledge of the subject–sometimes giving a resource–they tend to win the crowd over.

b.If judges disagree with each other, that is just fine. If they become adversarial, they lose the wisdom they are imparting.

c. If judges are taken in by emotional responses, e.g., personal stories of families facing end-of-life issues, the teams will object in the feedback we solicit.

d. If judges are not willing to banter and do not have a sense of humor or some humility, they will not be effective.

3. Lack of Knowledge by Responding Teams

a. From where we sit as Slam organizers, our greatest fear is the amount of misinformation some teams impart about a given topic. For example, some of the questions require technical knowledge. If the team does not know the facts, they just continue to pass on information that is uninformed and inaccurate. If the information is wrong, then it is also difficult to discuss whether it is wrong from an ethics perspective.

b.Simultaneously(and seemingly a contradiction), Slam organizers are concerned about reliance on unsourced “facts”–gleaned in many cases, from the internet. For example, last year, teams began to bring notes to the event. While we applaud their preparation, most of the preparation was cited from unsourced facts–and not on ethics issues embedded in the questions. What to do? We are not sure. We could, for example, suggest some sources for teams to use in their preparations–The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy–comes to mind. That said, the Slam is not a class, it is a community event.

Among the ideas listed on CivilPolitics’ website, based on psychological research, that have been suggested as ways to reduce intergroup divisions. Which of these ideas are reflected in the work you do?  What might you add to these ideas?

Reducing the Perception of “Zero-Sum” competition, (any win for one side = a loss for the other side), Affirming One’s Own Values to make people open to Others, Increasing Cross-Group Personal Connections through Fun, Meals, Talking, etc..

Operationalizing the techniques based on psychological research:

1. Our group is unfamiliar with most of these areas of research. So, we are very interested in learning about them. We can, however, contribute a few thoughts about how we think the Slam does reduce intergroup divisions.

a. Our event is billed as a “thinking and drinking” night. People are coming together for a meal and a beer. Even the judges are invited to have a few beers (sometimes by a team trying to “corrupt” a judge!) Likewise, as mentioned above, we encourage the judges to be sympathetic and good-natured in their “slam” commentaries. For the most part, the judges come through. Our prizes are also fun–from winning the philosopher’s hat to receiving Socrates refrigerator magnets.

c. We also increase personal connections between strangers sitting next to each other through audience score cards. The audience is invited to “judge” the team responses to the questions. After the question is given, there is a time (2 minutes) for conferencing by the teams. After the first Slam, there was some discussion about eliminating this, as the teams get a chance to see the questions a week before the Slam. What we have found is that the audience uses this time to talk with each other about the question to be answered. They discuss their own responses, sometimes with friends, but many times with a stranger, someone who is sitting next to them. It may have the effect of reducing intergroup divisions. We don’t know. We do know that it is that part of the Slam that the audience likes most, through the anecdotal feedback we have received about the event.

b. We wonder whether the check-off “affirming one’s own values to make people open to Others,” applies to the Slam. We think it does-if it means that people who don’t know each other are getting up and publicly proclaiming that they agree with assisted suicide under certain circumstances–or that zoos are ethical. These public declarations about ethics issues posed by the questions are integral to the Slam.

c. The Slam is not a zero sum competition in the sense that no team evaluates another team’s response publicly. They may have ideas they would like to share about how another team responded and what they said. But these are embedded in the conversations that sometimes take place between team members afterwards.

The Slam does NOT, however, give the impression that ethics responses are “just a matter of one’s opinion.” The judges serve to inform participants that there are ethics theories, concepts, techniques and tools that can be very useful and important in responding to the questions raised.

Finally, the organizers hope the Slam gives those attending a sense that they are participating in an event or occasion that actually goes back centuries–when philosophers and the public gathered for a drink and a meal to argue and examine the big ethical questions of their time.

Where can others learn more about what you do?

www.a2ethics.org

Go to Source

Comments

comments

The Clear Split Between AMD and Intel CPU Fans

Reposted from this post on the Ranker Data Blog

Recently, Tom’s Hardware used the Ranker widget to poll for their Reader’s Choice awards.  Among the topics they polled was the best CPUs and while I knew that there would likely be a preference for AMD or Intel, the two largest manufacturers, I didn’t realize that the choice would be as stark.  I’m a relative novice compared to most of the people who voted in this poll, so perhaps this would not surprise them, but voting for an AMD CPU, made one, on average, 80% less likely to vote for an Intel CPU, and vice versa.  Below is a taxonomy of votes, with items that are voted on similarly closer together, based on a hierarchical cluster analysis of the votes on this list, so you can visualize the split for yourself.

TomsHardwareCPUsTaxonomy

 

– Ravi Iyer

The post The Clear Split Between AMD and Intel CPU Fans appeared first on The Ranker.com Blog.

Go to Source

Comments

comments

Blue State Republicans as a path towards compromise

Reposted from this post on the Civil Politics Blog

Last night, the tossup senate races broke sharply toward the Republican party, which Republicans winning in two states where President Obama won in 2008 and 2012: Iowa and Colorado.  Research shows that one way that conflict can be ameliorated is when the boundaries between competing groups are blurred.  Indeed, if you look at some of the rhetoric from the victors, you can see that there may indeed be the seeds of compromise.

From this Denver station article:

Gardner, who represented a conservative fourth U.S. House district on the state’s eastern plains, courted the political center to win. He highlighted that strategy in his acceptance speech.

“The people of Colorado, voters around this state had their voices heard. They are not red. They are not blue. But they are crystal clear. Crystal clear in their message to Washington, D.C.,: Get your job done and get the heck of out of the way,” he said.

On the other side of the aisle, Red State Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia have led some of the most significant compromises, again by blurring the familiar political lines.  In contrast, those senators who are least eager to compromise often seek to reinforce the differences between groups, exacerbating the partisan divides by seeking a clear contrast.

Mitch McConnell, the new Senate Majority Leader, specifically went out of his way to strike a tone of compromise in his victory speech and talked about the “obligation to work together” with the opposite side toward solutions to our common problems.  Let’s hope that, as research would suggest, a less homogenous Republican Senate caucus (and eventually a less homogenous Democratic Senate caucus) leads to that vision becoming a reality.

- Ravi Iyer

 

 

 

Go to Source

Comments

comments

Ranker Predicts Spurs to beat Cavaliers for 2015 NBA Championship

Reposted from this post on the Ranker Data Blog

The NBA Season starts tonight and building on the proven success of our World Cup and movie box office predictions, as well as the preliminary success of our NFL predictions, Ranker is happy to announce our 2015 NBA Championship Predictions, based upon the aggregated data from basketball fans who have weighed in on our NBA and basketball lists.

Ranker's 2015 NBA Championship Predictions as Compared to ESPN and FiveThirtyEight
Ranker’s 2015 NBA Championship Predictions as Compared to ESPN and FiveThirtyEight

For comparison’s sake, I included the current ESPN power rankings as well as FiveThirtyEight’s teams that have the most percentage chance of winning the championship.  As with any sporting event, chance will play a large role in the outcome, but the premise of producing our predictions regularly is to validate our belief that the aggregated opinions of many will generally outperform expert opinions (ESPN) or models based on non-opinion data (e.g. player performance data plays a large role in FiveThirtyEight’s predictions).  Our ultimate goal is to prove the utility of crowdsourced data, as while something like NBA predictions is a crowded space where many people attempt to answer this question, Ranker produces the world’s only significant data model for equally important questions, such as determining the world’s best DJseveryone’s biggest turn-ons or the best cheeses for a grilled cheese sandwich.

– Ravi Iyer

The post Ranker Predicts Spurs to beat Cavaliers for 2015 NBA Championship appeared first on The Ranker.com Blog.

Go to Source

Comments

comments