Comments on: Announce: New fraud detection website http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Informe Clivar.Otra tonteria sobre el calentamiento global.Parte 1. « Futuroglacial http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-2822 Informe Clivar.Otra tonteria sobre el calentamiento global.Parte 1. « Futuroglacial Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:04:38 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-2822 [...] http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/ [...] [...] http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/ [...]

]]> By: Geoff Sherrington http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-2821 Geoff Sherrington Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:04:46 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-2821 In my laboratory times in the 70s, instruments often had meter readouts that the operator had to approximate while they moved gently to and fro. Unknown to the operators, we developed signatures for each of them based on the last digit. It was not infallible, but when you asked "Why did you do XYZ's readings yesterday?" the body language and sometimes the admission often suggested you were right. So I explained to the staff what we were doing and the practice soon died out. It was sometimes complicated by log scales on the meters. In my laboratory times in the 70s, instruments often had meter readouts that the operator had to approximate while they moved gently to and fro. Unknown to the operators, we developed signatures for each of them based on the last digit. It was not infallible, but when you asked “Why did you do XYZ’s readings yesterday?” the body language and sometimes the admission often suggested you were right. So I explained to the staff what we were doing and the practice soon died out. It was sometimes complicated by log scales on the meters.

]]> By: Geoff Sherrington http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-10187 Geoff Sherrington Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:04:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-10187 In my laboratory times in the 70s, instruments often had meter readouts that the operator had to approximate while they moved gently to and fro. Unknown to the operators, we developed signatures for each of them based on the last digit. It was not infallible, but when you asked "Why did you do XYZ's readings yesterday?" the body language and sometimes the admission often suggested you were right. So I explained to the staff what we were doing and the practice soon died out. It was sometimes complicated by log scales on the meters. In my laboratory times in the 70s, instruments often had meter readouts that the operator had to approximate while they moved gently to and fro. Unknown to the operators, we developed signatures for each of them based on the last digit. It was not infallible, but when you asked “Why did you do XYZ’s readings yesterday?” the body language and sometimes the admission often suggested you were right. So I explained to the staff what we were doing and the practice soon died out. It was sometimes complicated by log scales on the meters.

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-2820 admin Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:39:59 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-2820 Rich: "why mention Benford’s Law at all?" Well on the plus side it puts it into context so people can research it. First digit has been used a lot, see Nigrini, second digit I have used in my book on measurement data. This is the first time I have seen last digits used. It's not a law really. Rich: “why mention Benford’s Law at all?” Well on the plus side it puts it into context so people can research it. First digit has been used a lot, see Nigrini, second digit I have used in my book on measurement data. This is the first time I have seen last digits used. It’s not a law really.

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-10186 Anonymous Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:39:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-10186 Rich: "why mention Benford’s Law at all?" Well on the plus side it puts it into context so people can research it. First digit has been used a lot, see Nigrini, second digit I have used in my book on measurement data. This is the first time I have seen last digits used. It's not a law really. Rich: “why mention Benford’s Law at all?” Well on the plus side it puts it into context so people can research it. First digit has been used a lot, see Nigrini, second digit I have used in my book on measurement data. This is the first time I have seen last digits used. It’s not a law really.

]]> By: Rich http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-2819 Rich Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:43:51 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-2819 #16 davids That was rather my point. If what you're doing is testing against a uniform distribution (and the table of results shows that you are) why mention Benford's Law at all? True, the distribution of the Nth digit tends to uniform as N increases but so what? No, it doesn't matter but it confused me at the outset. #16 davids

That was rather my point. If what you’re doing is testing against a uniform distribution (and the table of results shows that you are) why mention Benford’s Law at all? True, the distribution of the Nth digit tends to uniform as N increases but so what?

No, it doesn’t matter but it confused me at the outset.

]]> By: Rich http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-10185 Rich Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:43:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-10185 #16 davids That was rather my point. If what you're doing is testing against a uniform distribution (and the table of results shows that you are) why mention Benford's Law at all? True, the distribution of the Nth digit tends to uniform as N increases but so what? No, it doesn't matter but it confused me at the outset. #16 davids

That was rather my point. If what you’re doing is testing against a uniform distribution (and the table of results shows that you are) why mention Benford’s Law at all? True, the distribution of the Nth digit tends to uniform as N increases but so what?

No, it doesn’t matter but it confused me at the outset.

]]> By: admin http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-2818 admin Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:16:43 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-2818 Steven: "Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating." That is right and I have said that. No insinuation in the title, detecting cheating is what the web site and these methods are mainly for. Here is an analogy. You go to your doctor and he suggests a blood test for a condition, prostate cancer say. He tells you the test is not definitive, but if it comes back negative you are clear. The test comes back positive, and he suggests more extensive testing. That is what is happening here. Do you accuse the doctor of insinuating you have prostate cancer? If it turns out you don't have prostate cancer do you tell he's wearing a tin hat for reporting that the first test came back positive? Thanks for your comment anyway. Steven: “Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating.” That is right and I have said that. No insinuation in the title, detecting cheating is what the web site and these methods are mainly for.

Here is an analogy. You go to your doctor and he suggests a blood test for a condition, prostate cancer say. He tells you the test is not definitive, but if it comes back negative you are clear. The test comes back positive, and he suggests more extensive testing.

That is what is happening here. Do you accuse the doctor of insinuating you have prostate cancer? If it turns out you don’t have prostate cancer do you tell he’s wearing a tin hat for reporting that the first test came back positive?

Thanks for your comment anyway.

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-10184 Anonymous Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:16:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-10184 Steven: "Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating." That is right and I have said that. No insinuation in the title, detecting cheating is what the web site and these methods are mainly for. Here is an analogy. You go to your doctor and he suggests a blood test for a condition, prostate cancer say. He tells you the test is not definitive, but if it comes back negative you are clear. The test comes back positive, and he suggests more extensive testing. That is what is happening here. Do you accuse the doctor of insinuating you have prostate cancer? If it turns out you don't have prostate cancer do you tell he's wearing a tin hat for reporting that the first test came back positive? Thanks for your comment anyway. Steven: “Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating.” That is right and I have said that. No insinuation in the title, detecting cheating is what the web site and these methods are mainly for.

Here is an analogy. You go to your doctor and he suggests a blood test for a condition, prostate cancer say. He tells you the test is not definitive, but if it comes back negative you are clear. The test comes back positive, and he suggests more extensive testing.

That is what is happening here. Do you accuse the doctor of insinuating you have prostate cancer? If it turns out you don’t have prostate cancer do you tell he’s wearing a tin hat for reporting that the first test came back positive?

Thanks for your comment anyway.

]]> By: Steven Talbot http://landshape.org/enm/announce-new-fraud-detection-website/#comment-2817 Steven Talbot Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:27:35 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=1402#comment-2817 David Stockwell, You state yourself that "there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected". Why, then, do you consider it proper to refer to "fraud detection" in your title and "cheating" in your subtitle? It seems to me that you are improperly insinuating such motives on the part of GISS, without respecting the responsibility of actually presenting any proof to support your implications. Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating. David Stockwell,

You state yourself that “there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected”. Why, then, do you consider it proper to refer to “fraud detection” in your title and “cheating” in your subtitle? It seems to me that you are improperly insinuating such motives on the part of GISS, without respecting the responsibility of actually presenting any proof to support your implications. Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating.

]]>