
Correlated: Discover surprising correlations - jawns
http://www.correlated.org/?refer=corncob
======
goodside
'Each day, a new survey is posted — something like "Do you like math?" or
"Have you ever gone on a blind date?"

'At the end of the day, the results of the survey are compared with the
results of all previous surveys, and the two outcomes with the strongest link
are highlighted.'

Insert face in palm.

No. You cannot do this. Nearly all of the correlations found on this blog are
pure noise. This is the data-science equivalent of staring at a cloud,
noticing it looks like a balloon dog, and thinking "Jesus, why would anyone go
to the trouble of making a cloud that looks like a balloon dog? Think of the
engineering effort involved! Why isn't this in the news?"

Google for "multiple comparison issues" and "Bonferroni correction" if you
want more technical detail on how stupid this is.

~~~
1337biz
Can't upvote this comment hard enough. It is sad that these
correlation=causation myths are getting promoted in such a superficial form.
And the media is once again eager to jump on the bandwagon _Perigee, an
imprint of Penguin Books, to produce a book based on Correlated. The book will
feature some of the stats from the blog, as well as a bunch of never-before-
published correlations._ His blog on the other hand is actually quite
interesting to read [http://coding.pressbin.com/88/How-my-new-site-Correlated-
wor...](http://coding.pressbin.com/88/How-my-new-site-Correlated-works/)

------
jawns
Hi, I'm the OP. I'd just like to encourage the critics in this thread to read
"A response to Correlated's critics," which is linked to from the homepage:

[http://coding.pressbin.com/108/A-response-to-Correlateds-
cri...](http://coding.pressbin.com/108/A-response-to-Correlateds-critics/)

------
tfb
I really hope it becomes standard for websites like this one to no longer
require a full signup to use it. Maybe use a combination of sessions, IP
addresses, browser fingerprints, etc. to differentiate anonymous users. I
understand that the creator(s) of the site want to gather as much contact
information as possible, but those who care to be a part of the community will
do just that, while the rest (like myself) just want to try it out
immediately... without filling out another sign up form.

I submitted my answer to the corn on the cob question but didn't make it any
further than that because it immediately asked me to fill in a handful of
fields to sign up. If I was able to continue without having to do that, I
would have probably stuck around longer to provide the site with answers to
other questions (providing value) and possibly even gotten sucked in and if I
saw that the site was well-made, become a long-lasting member of the site's
community.

------
jrockway
It's important to change the expression "X% of people" to "X% of people
browsing the Internet with nothing better to do than answer silly questions".
For example:

 _In general, 61 percent of people who search for a blog on correlations and
submit answers to poll questions there claim to pee in the shower. But among
those people who have nothing better to do than click buttons on blogs and who
claim they would use a bidet if available, 79 percent claim they pee in the
shower._

With some level of rigor you can correct for self-selection and lying, but I
doubt they are doing that here.

------
jstanley
Everyone hating on this: lighten up. I am pretty sure they know that these
correlations are nonsense. It is still a funny site.

------
kvnn
Is it safe to take a survey of 50 people seriously?

~~~
jrockway
No. This site should be called unknown-quantity-of-noise-on-top-of-unknown-
quality-of-signal.org. But to be fair, that _is_ a lot of typing.

~~~
twiceaday
This wont stop the vast majority of people from quoting this site as if their
noise = correlation = causation. You will never go broke underestimating the
intelligence of the public.

------
SeanDav
28% of HN people looking at the OP site will regret wasting 2 minutes of their
life.

------
Xcelerate
Holy cow. I hope that shower statistic isn't really true!

