I’m not trying to “win” anything, I think that may be the root of the issue here.
I also think you grossly misunderstand what google trends shows, which I tried to explain, but you seemed to think meant I was trying to “win” something.
I’ll be done with you here. I would recommend you learn how google trends works though, because it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
I’m still lost as to what you were trying to say with lolita express, but if you’re gonna try and pull the “nah, you don’t understand your source” reddit switcheroo thing I’m happy to write this off as a bad attempt at trolling and move on.
I’m aware of the plane, but I don’t know why you’ve brought it up. You’re trying to illustrate a point and fair enough, but the point you’re making isn’t clear - it just looks like Trends behaving exactly like it should. You’re pointing at evidence and saying it’s wrong, but… why do you think it’s wrong?
There’s no basis for you to make that claim - that’s why this feels an awful lot like you’re just trying to win the argument, not actually explain your point.
Trends is just search history over time. It is entirely impacted by major events, and in no way demonstrates common awareness. Massive peaks - such as those resulting from ongoing events like a vote to make the release of Epstein files as law, and the ongoing nonsense and slow fed drip of heavily redacted files - skew the charts substantially.
Give me a moment to grab my laptop, and I’ll edit in to demonstrate.
AH - Okay. I see where I have misunderstood what you were saying.
“Awareness” is a separate issue - there’s no way to demonstrate awareness without some really comprehensive periodic survey results (that don’t exist). The claim I made, household name, is based on people actively thinking about or discussing him. There’s no way to know what people have forgotten, and random criminal names from years before may or may not stick around, so the only indicator we have is of people interacting with information about him.
there’s no way to demonstrate awareness without some really comprehensive periodic survey results (that don’t exist)
Exactly. Thats all I’m saying. Epstein (and especially the Lolita Express) were not unknowns until after Epstein died. Did he become a more common discussion after? Absolutely, but it isn’t as though people in general were unaware of his existence.
I’m not trying to “win” anything, I think that may be the root of the issue here.
I also think you grossly misunderstand what google trends shows, which I tried to explain, but you seemed to think meant I was trying to “win” something.
I’ll be done with you here. I would recommend you learn how google trends works though, because it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
I’m still lost as to what you were trying to say with lolita express, but if you’re gonna try and pull the “nah, you don’t understand your source” reddit switcheroo thing I’m happy to write this off as a bad attempt at trolling and move on.
Lolita express was Epstein’s private plane.
There is no “switcharoo”, trends does not show what you think it does, and does not work how you seem to think it works.
I’m aware of the plane, but I don’t know why you’ve brought it up. You’re trying to illustrate a point and fair enough, but the point you’re making isn’t clear - it just looks like Trends behaving exactly like it should. You’re pointing at evidence and saying it’s wrong, but… why do you think it’s wrong?
There’s no basis for you to make that claim - that’s why this feels an awful lot like you’re just trying to win the argument, not actually explain your point.
Trends is just search history over time. It is entirely impacted by major events, and in no way demonstrates common awareness. Massive peaks - such as those resulting from ongoing events like a vote to make the release of Epstein files as law, and the ongoing nonsense and slow fed drip of heavily redacted files - skew the charts substantially.
Give me a moment to grab my laptop, and I’ll edit in to demonstrate.
AH - Okay. I see where I have misunderstood what you were saying.
“Awareness” is a separate issue - there’s no way to demonstrate awareness without some really comprehensive periodic survey results (that don’t exist). The claim I made, household name, is based on people actively thinking about or discussing him. There’s no way to know what people have forgotten, and random criminal names from years before may or may not stick around, so the only indicator we have is of people interacting with information about him.
Exactly. Thats all I’m saying. Epstein (and especially the Lolita Express) were not unknowns until after Epstein died. Did he become a more common discussion after? Absolutely, but it isn’t as though people in general were unaware of his existence.
Thats all I’m saying.