Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

83% Positive

Analyzed from 356 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#numbers#benford#law#query#number#where#analysis#version#more#fraud

Discussion (14 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Xirdus•34 minutes ago
I really wish the analysis didn't cut off at exactly 10 numbers. Rerunning the query with higher LIMIT, I noticed the following:

- 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.

laurentlb•about 1 hour ago
Thanks for providing the query and a link to execute it (I didn't know about that one). Now I can play with it and find the most popular words...

"to", "the", "of". I don't know what I expected.

gregdaniels421•3 minutes ago
For determining words that are important doing something like a tf-idf would make more sense, or doing some key word analysis like RAKE or YAKE.
pm2222•about 2 hours ago
omgmog•about 2 hours ago
Yes, as linked in the post
benj111•12 minutes ago
My guess is 1 (or 1.0) declaring something has reached 'stable'

Edit. Perhaps the title should be 'parsing numbers is hard'.

jdw64•23 minutes ago
I once did some small work with a mathematician who was an online friend of mine. He was really into Benford's Law. A lot of mathematicians seem to love Benford's Law, and I wonder why that is. I'm not sure if I was rude to him, but we lost touch, and I miss him. I learned so much from his code.
rmunn•8 minutes ago
Probably because it's so useful in detecting the "smell" of fraudulent numbers. Fraud is, of course, going to be most common where money is involved, but it can show up in many other places: for example, someone might be tempted to fudge their scientific data if their career depends on getting numbers that aren't quite where they want the numbers to be...

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.

jdw64•5 minutes ago
Thank you!
fghorow•about 2 hours ago
Probably 42, but I could be mistaken...
calvinmorrison•about 1 hour ago
We're number 1!

benfords law strikes again. useful for fraud analysis too

mwigdahl•about 2 hours ago
You missed a great opportunity to title this "The 10 most popular numbers in Hacker News titles"!
saghm•about 2 hours ago
You'll never guess number 6! Seriously, why would you think that 6 is one of them, there are so many better numbers out there
omgmog•about 2 hours ago
Now that's Numberwang!