Posted on 04/05/2014 1:15:18 AM PDT by Swordmaker
I have been in direct marketing for twenty years and therefore grasp statistical terminology and concepts.
You’re being entirely too defensive regarding the poor grammar and spelling in the linked article. It’s almost as if you’re affiliated somehow, or god forbid, you actually wrote that crap yourself.
Give it up, admit it’s inferior writing and do better with it in the future. You’re verging upon making a fool of yourself, here. Time to fold.
One takes a peek at a lot of things. There is a peak near Seattle called Mt. Rainier.
Please disregard my prior advice, it's too late for you to recover.
I don't give a rap about your "marketing experience." Your grasp is tenuous at best. . The only only one making a fool of himself here is you. There is no poor grammar in the article, only a willful failure of your understanding. Perhaps your vocabulary needs work.
Do better with it in the future???? Did you bother to even read what I wrote about who writes and edits PatentlyApple? I thought not. You seem to attribute it to me! Absurd!
There now appears to be a coordinated attack on me by Apple thread trolls claiming I am responsible for everything pro-Apple. It's seems ridiculous. I am NOT responsible for your lack of knowledge.. I have provided a logical explanation with defined PROOF from dictionaries showing the usage is correct. What have YOU provided? Your critical, ill informed opinion and Bupkis.
I have worked in the field in the past, been an editor, and done peer review. . . You? "Direct-marketing." Used car salesmen are in direct marketing. . . So are the people who call on the phone selling time-shares. Wheee. You should then know in what neighborhoods your "peak" customers are located. . . and what are the "peak" times to call to find them home. . . And raise their pique at being interrupted at dinner. They may even be graphically displayed for you on a cluster plotted map, with color-coded dots showing which customers have purchased which product, and where. . . and where the "peak" sales of those products occur to help you determine where best to market your products next. SHEESH! This ain't rocket science.
As I said, you are arguing with an economist about something in my field of expertise. . . And although I am no longer practicing, I have NOT forgotten my education. Give it a rest.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. My. Rainer is a HIGH POINT in the terrain of the surrounding territory. The author was not referring to looking at a few areas, he was referring to the nature of the data in those cities. It is quite clear from the context of the entire articles both at PatentlyApple and BusinessInsider, as well as the raw data.
The article is NOT a popular travelogue about looking at pictures of cities around the United States and Canada. If that were the case, your "peek" context might be reasonable. But, it isn't a travelogue article or a look at pictures.
However, the article IS about the stunning disparity the DATA shows in the data "peaks" for Apple iOS usage compared to Android usage in populous large cities! Ergo, the context of the article's thrust establishes the a priori understanding of how the SECTION HEADING—which demonstrates the graphical data of the claims being presented—must be interpreted. It is self-explanatory, and the proper usage under the logical thrust of the article.
. Considering it's not a sentence I'm not surprised you'd say that. It doesn't have to be. It's a Section Header akin to a chapter heading. Perhaps you'd prefer this :
"An iOS Usage Peak at a Few Larger Cities in the US and Canada"
Instead of the original heading:
"A Peak at a Few Larger Cities in the US and Canada"
The header used in the article implies the information provided in the introductory paragraphs is what "peaked" while my revision is more explicit about that. Yet, both the preceding paragraphs and the entire following section are explicit about what peaks in those locations. I believe the header was sufficiently descriptive and well within the style guidelines with which I am familiar.
The fact is, that if you look at the map at the source, the data shows iOS peaks in ALL large cities in the US and Canada. . . and most of the world.
"Android" isn't a vendor, it's a platform that encompasses hundreds of products from dozens of vendors. Apple is the leading vendor in the U.S. and the iPhone 5S is the leading product.
Samsung is probably the only legitimate competitor to Apple in this space; the two companies are the only profitable ones in the entire market segment.
You’ve gone from suspected fool to removing all doubt to bloviating troll in the span of a few hours here, Swordmaker. I’ve been a Mac user since 1985 and have participated in many Apple threads, perhaps some posted by you. But, I do not recall such ignorance being trotted out and proudly displayed by you. Don’t worry about me, I’ll make a point of checking to see who posts anything dealing with Apple in the future. If it’s yours, I’ll avoid it like the plague.
Regulator? Why do you continue with this? I have provided dictionary definitions, explained the usage as completely normal in context of economics and statistical articles, but you continue to ATTACK ME, calling me names and insulting my intelligence.
You clearly do not understand the plain issue and have doubled down on this for some unknown reason. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING PRO OR ANTI-APLE, but you want to make it so. The author of the article wrote a heading perfectly understandable in the context of the article' subject using correct English. QED. YOU MISINTERPRETED IT.
Words mean specific things. . . and economists, scientists, attorneys, mathematicians and statisticians use them precisely. . . and they aren't mealy mouthed about them, using cutesy phrases such as "take a "peek" at these cities. . . " when they are reporting evidence. Such a usage would mean they don't take their work seriously. When I read the header I understood it exactly as it was meant to be read in context. . . that the data showed iOS usage was far higher in these cities, I.e. A data PEAK in urban centers. It's technical terminology, which every experienced economist and statistician would recognize instantly! So give this idiotic argument a rest. . . and stop making a fool of yourself! YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THIS!
You may prefer remaining ignorant, but that's not a good thing.
Be a man, regulator. Admit you made a mistake. It’s ok. You don’t ALWAYS have to be right. Sometimes there are people who ARE experts in their fields, who have had a lifetime of experience in it, who just MIGHT know more than you do. . . and might be able to teach you something.
Be a man, regulator. Admit you made a mistake. It’s ok. You don’t ALWAYS have to be right. Sometimes there are people who ARE experts in their fields, who have had a lifetime of experience in it, who just MIGHT know more than you do. . . and might be able to teach you something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.