> Anyone with eyes can see There goes your solid reasoning again. And just because a line goes up doesn't mean the measurement of the line was correct. The entire point is that his analysis was inaccurate. So whatever he measured wasn't presented in the way it should have been. So again, you cannot make ANY conclusions about that data. Even if it was showing that no botting happened.

> It is very clear how level and inorganic the straight line of bot voting is. > > > > a 5% deviance is nothing. The obvious onslaught of artificial votes is obvious. Yea, i'm sorry but that's not statistical analysis. Just because you think something is very obvious and clear it does not mean that it's actually true. It might actually be true, but his analysis was not accurate. It was done by someone who may have only read about basic statistics, but anyone with first year statistics knowledge would know enough to understand that what he did was inadequate and completely irresponsible--in that he should not have drawn any conclusions from it.

t_D mods made the sub private, that's why it's not in your history.

The first comment actually has a pretty great outline of why his statistical analysis is incorrect. I mean, this is what the guy replied: "I did pull the 5% number out of thin air, as an estimate." It is NOT statistical analysis, especially since no tests were done to show the significance of the observation. He also made his claim on the assumption that reddit does not fuzz their votes, which is false. So his entire analysis is based on fuzzed data, which makes it meaningless.

Lol you've made this "i've seen the data" comment often here. Care to share this data with us?