ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
83% Positive
Analyzed from 334 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#numbers#benford#law#query#number#where#version#fraud#analysis#didn
Discussion (13 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
- The very next two numbers are 100 and 0. While 100 is consistent with the article's explanations, 0 still placing high despite fixing the query warrants further investigation. A quick glance at returned headlines shows the problem of phantom zeroes is not, in fact, fixed.
- The query doesn't group decimals and integers together. 2.0 is at #17 with 10k hits, while 1.0 is at #26 with 5k hits. So not only is the "version number" explanation for top numbers wrong - the claim that earlier version numbers are more common than later version numbers is wrong too.
"to", "the", "of". I don't know what I expected.
Edit. Perhaps the title should be 'parsing numbers is hard'.
If a number distribution that should be following Benford's Law isn't, that's nowhere close to actual proof of fraud, but it can be a pointer helping you know where to start looking. Because if all the files except this one have numbers that follow Benford's Law, yet this one doesn't, then that's the place where you start digging for other, more positive, evidence of manipulation.
benfords law strikes again. useful for fraud analysis too