Calculating the number of believers (as of April 2017, 30 millions)

And what about those that accept NASA is real?
What do they normally use?

Youtube.
flat earthers directly search for source so that they directly look at youtube. but nasaers are looking youtube after they saw a news in web. so that web search is unproportional but youtube search is so.

Because you've ignored the parties Liberal Nationals, The Nationals and Country liberals which supported the coalition.   Inother say, your comparing liberals and labour isn't a valid example, because liberals have won it by support of their coalition members.

Liberals have won 44 chairs, their coalition has won 33 chairs so that 77 in total.
Labor party takes 68 chair isn't enough. But in fact the labor party still was more popular than liberals; 68 to 44.

Statistics say true one more time. Labors was leading the statistics and was leaded the elections too. Your cheatings don't tell the coalition and liberal party won because of coalition can not change the facts. It proves how you are pathetic trying to manipulate your own election results.

but nasaers are looking youtube after they saw a news in web.

Which means youtube isn't the valid trend to use.
And even still, you are yet to show that trends correlate to belief.
Not everyone that searches for it believes.

Because you've ignored the parties Liberal Nationals, The Nationals and Country liberals which supported the coalition.

They are commonly know as Liberals.
But if you like, we can put it as the coalition instead. That puts Labour way out in front.

They are commonly know as Liberals.

You're lying again.



There are four party appearently different each other. Stop to saying lie to support your baseless claims. It is vast in vain because you are lying and only doing it becaue of anger about my workings. There is clearly a relationship and they are clearly different parties have their own voters.

You're lying again.

No, I'm not.
I'm showing just how problematic your broken methodology is.

It is highly dependent upon exactly what words you pick.
You can easily manipulate the search to get whatever you want.

Look at the massively different results just from 4 different ways of searching for the labor party:

Quote from: wise on July 10, 2019, 03:05:09 AM

You're lying again.

No, I'm not.

yes you are.

imgur does not work in our office.

I've showed the statistics clearly shows these parties are clearly different. Stop lying anymore.

imgur does not work in our office.

Then maybe you should focus on work?
Or are you being paid to shill for the failed Earth society, I mean flat Earth society?

I have shown clearly that depending on what words you pick you can get widely different results.

This shows your methodology is fundamentally flawed.

But all of this is a tangent, as it in no way links back to your prior claims about search results, rather than trends.

Quote from: wise on July 10, 2019, 04:37:38 AM

imgur does not work in our office.

Then maybe you should focus on work?
Or are you being paid to shill for the failed Earth society, I mean flat Earth society?

I have shown clearly that depending on what words you pick you can get widely different results.

This shows your methodology is fundamentally flawed.

But all of this is a tangent, as it in no way links back to your prior claims about search results, rather than trends.

Nope. You have showed how my method works perfectly.

Because you said;

Look at Labour and Liberal for Australia.
Labour trends higher, but Liberal won.

But there is nothing as labours and liberals in election; but Labour party and liberal party. And, labour party have got more voting than liberal party. You have counted even national party as liberals because of being its coalition. It is another simple trick of you. You have cornered so made up sush a cheating but it does not wash at all. Your manipulating the statistics neither change the reliablity of statistics, nor change the fact that you're a shameless liar.

Nope. You have showed how my method works perfectly.

No, I provided an example where it doesn't work.
You then provided another example where it produces different results for the same problem.
That shows just how unreliable it is.
It is highly selective to just what words you use.
It is even selective to if you put it in as a search term or a topic.

And again, it is a completely different method to what you were using before.
One is search trends, the other is search results.

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 03:13:51 AM

Nope. You have showed how my method works perfectly.

No, I provided an example where it doesn't work.
You then provided another example where it produces different results for the same problem.

No, you have not provided example. You have just claimed something lie. Because you said Labour trends higher, but Liberal won; but liberal not won because there is nothing liberal in the elections, but liberal party. They are quite different things. If you want to compare liberal party and labour party then you write it as "liberal party" and "labour party", but not "liberals" and "labours". you cannot search for similar words to manipulate a statistic and compare it to the outcome of other things. You have to search same thing.

Now. Get stop to act like a child, grow up and stop to manipulate the events. Grow up, just growing up all you need to accept the truth. Give up lying, give up manipulating.

Your lying and manipulating are proving that my method is comletely fair, completly justify and completely reliable, although you deny however you want. Even Your denying  proves its being true because it is true whenever you say its being wrong. Because you are an incorrigible  liar and still deny the truth.

No, you have not provided example. You have just claimed something lie.

You not liking the example doesn't mean I didn't provide it.
You providing a different one doesn't mean I didn't provide it.
You not liking what words Australians use doesn't mean I didn't provide it.

I even demonstrated quite well that lots of people don't use the term you want.
Here is another example, this time making sure that I use search term:

And as you say you can't use imgur, I'll even be nice and give the key details.
The search terms used are:
Australian labor party, labor party, labour party, labor, labour

The relative values at the peak (on the day of election:
5, 21, 30, 85, 100.

So I don't really care if the party is officially called the Australian labor party.
That wont stop people searching for it as labor, or even the correct spelling of labour.
The same applies for liberals vs the liberal-national coalition.

The simple fact is it is highly dependent upon what terms you use.
This shows it is not a reliable method.

And again, this is completely different to using search results.

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 03:43:27 AM

No, you have not provided example. You have just claimed something lie.

You not liking the example doesn't mean I didn't provide it.

It is not because I didn't like it because it is a wrong example. It isn't the example. I have proved your being a liar and manipulated the issue. I have proved your being a liar and announced it here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=75636.msg2186154#msg2186154

Now all my readers will learn how you are manipulating the issues in benefit of only object to me. You are objecting only people think you object me. Your issue is not fair at all but a lie. Stop lying. People search labours isn't meaning of people search labour party. They are quite different.



If you still can not get the difference of labour, liberal, labour party and liberal party so you have to see a doctor.

I realize wise is a fun target for you guys, but pls knock it off.

It's really hard when he fails to understand statistics and presents data from a source in a manner that is contrary to what the source states the data means.

It is not because I didn't like it because it is a wrong example.

Why is it a wrong example though?
They are search terms people will use to find out about these groups.

It shows just how problematic your method is.
It is highly dependent upon exactly what terms you use.

But enough about trends as you weren't using them.
The same thing applies to using search results.
For example, searching for Jesus gives me 1.38 billion results.
Jesus Christ only gives 529 million results.
Christ gives 606 million.
The Messiah gives 51.1 million.
Son of God gives 1.08 billion.
God gives 3.15 billion.
Yeshua (Jesus' alleged actual name) gives 9.64 million.
Yahweh gives 11.9 million.
Jehovah gives 42.6 million.
Christian gives 4.27 billion.
Christianity gives 245 million.
Saviour gives 42 million.
Lord gives 1.36 billion (with lots of actual lords and lord of the rings stuff).
Lord and saviour gives 24.3 million.
Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour gives 19.8 million.

Just which of these terms should be used to see if someone is a Christian? To see if they believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and Savour?

And don't worry, this issue applies for loads of terms.
Flat Earth gives 524 million results.
Earth is flat gives 890 million.
Is Earth flat gives 349 million results with an answer "No, the Earth is roughly a sphere."
Planar Earth gives 25.1 million.
Earth is not a globe gives 238 million.

Again, it is going to be highly dependent upon which term you use.
And there is still no justification for why any of it should equate to number of believers.

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 05:37:08 AM

It is not because I didn't like it because it is a wrong example.

Why is it a wrong example though?
They are search terms people will use to find out about these groups.
<blabbing>

Because statistics work like this. Your denying the science is your own problem. Grow up and face the science!

Because statistics work like this. Your denying the science is your own problem. Grow up and face the science!

I have clearly shown that statistics do not work like this, that it is highly dependent upon exactly what word or phrase you choose.
Dismissing that as blabbing just shows that you have absolutely no regard for the truth and are happy to lie to everyone.

Now how about you follow your own advice and face the science?
Provide the evidence that your methodology works.
Note: that requires you to actually find out how many people believe in various things and show that the number of results correlates to that and that the

Quote from: wise on July 11, 2019, 02:49:39 PM

Because statistics work like this. Your denying the science is your own problem. Grow up and face the science!

I have clearly shown that statistics do not work like this, that it is highly dependent upon exactly what word or phrase you choose.

Nope. You have just childishly objected even after everybody saw that my method perfectly works and completely scientific. On the one hand, you claim you represent something related science, on the other hand you are completely denying the science. If there would be a really a science, it would shame on you. Because, in the name of denying everything about me, you are clearly denying all the science. If I would claim your father's being your father you would even deny it because I said.

You have just childishly objected even after everybody saw that my method perfectly works and completely scientific.

No, I rationally objected by showing it doesn't work.
Then further emphasised the problem with it.

Your methodology is highly sensitive to just what search term is used.
Using different terms can yield completely different results.
A rigorous scientific process would not have that issue.

Accepting this massive issue with your methodology is not me rejecting science.
Rejecting/ignoring this massive issue would be rejecting science.

You are yet to show your method works at all.

No, I rationally objected by showing it doesn't work.
Then further emphasised the problem with it.

Nope. You've objected only for being accepted as you have objected. I think this is how your program works: "Whatever wise says, object it". Because I have proved your arguments being null but you are continueing to do it. There is nothing accepting your mistake in your program.

Your methodology is highly sensitive to just what search term is used.
Using different terms can yield completely different results.
A rigorous scientific process would not have that issue.

Wouldn't it be better to explain the methods that will be applied to make the method better instead of saying that this method is wrong, rather than the aggressive attack you've ever done? you say that now. because you understand that irreconcilable attacks have no effect. It's a little late, but, anyway.

Accepting this massive issue with your methodology is not me rejecting science.
Rejecting/ignoring this massive issue would be rejecting science.

what you have said so far was about to reject this method altogether. now you soften it a little but you continue your insistent fights. what a shame. you really need a doctor.

You are yet to show your method works at all.

I've gave examples about how it works. But you are as blind as can't escape your globularist cave.

google search results are directly related to election results. I have given many examples like this. but you ignore them because they do not obey the order you got: "object to everything about wise." otherwise you should have apologized. but apology requires humanity. How much humanity can be expected from a mobile phone? I wish you would be thrown away after crashed.

Nope. You've objected only for being accepted as you have objected.

No, I objected because I care about the truth, something you clearly don't.
If you did you wouldn't be using a method that indicates more people than exit believe in water.

If you go and read through all the messages I have made in the past you will notice I have agreed with some of the things you have said.

Wouldn't it be better to explain the methods that will be applied to make the method better instead of saying that this method is wrong, rather than the aggressive attack you've ever done?

That would be the case, if your method was redeemable.
If instead flawed method you were just using a random number generator to decide how many believers there were, how you would suggest fixing it to make it work?

I can suggest replacements, such as actually surveying people to find out what they believe, but your method is so fundamentally flawed it is extremely difficult to redeem.
The best thing to do with an irredeemable methodology is to expose it as fundamentally flawed and try to convince people to stop using it.

Search results and trends only have a very loose connection to what people believe.
There are spikes in search trends due to various activities.
If someone famous says Earth is flat or even discusses a flat Earth, that can cause a spike in search trends.
The reporting of it and people discussing it can cause a spike in search results.
But that doesn't mean more people believe.

I've gave examples about how it works.
google search results are directly related to election results.

You gave examples of search trends which have basically nothing to do with the topic as you were using search results. You do understand they are different right?
It was a little distraction so you could pretend it works.
I then provided examples showing even that is highly dependent upon exactly what terms you use.

Even if it wasn't dependent upon terms, you would need to show a multitude of examples, from a wide variety of areas.

Again, you can not directly correlate typing a phrase into a search bar with actual belief in a subject.

I myself searched flat Earth incredulously!


Also, wise... Your English is exceptional this morning! Did you find a better translator?

No, I objected because I care about the truth, something you clearly don't.

No, you objected because it does not fit with your belief. When you object you clearly know you lie.

If you did you wouldn't be using a method that indicates more people than exit believe in water.

Again, you can't compare water with any belief. Because water literally isn't a belief. You are doing it just for manipulation. As an angry glober you have no chance but need to manipulate like everytime you do.

If you go and read through all the messages I have made in the past you will notice I have agreed with some of the things you have said.

During you mistakenly think I support something I do not have to support. When you get it does not support your imaginary heros then you immediately turn to opposite corner.

That would be the case, if your method was redeemable.

My method is redeemable, but you are not enough adult to admit it.

If instead flawed method you were just using a random number generator to decide how many believers there were, how you would suggest fixing it to make it work?

They are quite different things. google statistics are used as a scientific statistics method like I do, and it works since years for many different comparings. Your denying the facts can't change the truth. Your accusations are disgrace of the scientific thoughts.

I can suggest replacements, such as actually surveying people to find out what they believe, but your method is so fundamentally flawed it is extremely difficult to redeem.

Inother say, you don't interest suggest anything and like to attacking like everytime you do. Because there isn't anything in your book as good faith. Your only motivation is destroying or attacking. This is what make you stay alive, ie hate. You have nothing but only hate as emotion.

The best thing to do with an irredeemable methodology is to expose it as fundamentally flawed and try to convince people to stop using it.

a malicious advice would also be bad. this is one of the worst and hateful suggestions ever made. You are doing it because I use it.

Search results and trends only have a very loose connection to what people believe.

It directly relevant. Your denying the fact does not magically makes a fact to the mistake. You are only deceiving yourself.

blabbing

answering your baseless and childish claims is nothing but a waste of time. I'm sure the readers understand how pathetic angry globulards are.

Again, you can't compare water with any belief. Because water literally isn't a belief.

I am comparing belief in water with belief in Jesus, just like you want to compare belief in Jesus, with belief in FE and belief in NASA.
FE and NASA are not beliefs.
FE is a baseless, refuted claim about the shape of Earth.
If earth was flat, then FE would be a real physical thing, just like water, not a belief.
The only way for you to claim that comparing FE is fine but comparing water is not is if you admit FE is a pile of garbage with no connection to reality.
It also requires you to claim that Jesus is an entirely fictional character.

They are quite different things. google statistics are used as a scientific statistics method like I do

Your method is not scientific at all.
Your method is taking data about one thing (i.e. search results) and pretending they are data about something completely different (i.e. an indication of the number of people who believe in it).
There is nothing scientific about it.
You may as well just be generating random numbers, using some stats on that and pretending that somehow equates to belief.

Misapplication of statistics isn't scientific. It is garbage.

If you want to show that it is a proper scientific approach, you need to look at a wide variety of different topics and show that search results equates to number of believers.
But you didn't.
You just pretended it does and then went with Jesus as your baseline.

You didn't even bothering comparing the three religions.
Using your numbers:
Jesus - 1.74 B
Mr squiggles, the man from the moon - 923 M
Hindu (why the sudden change? Why not Vishnu or Shiva?, but you chose this, so oh well) - 262 M

Now the number of "believers" (Note, these numbers may be inaccurate, especially due to some countries declaring all their people to belong to a religion even if they do not believe at all, and having the death penalty if they object)
Christianity - 2.04 B
Islam - 1.8 B
Hinduism - 1.2 B

Now lets see what the ratios are, i.e. number of believers per search result:
Christianity - 1.17
Islam - 1.95
Hinduism - 4.58

I think I know why you chose Hindu, Vishnu and Shiva produce far fewer results.

But what does this show?
Even across this range of religious beliefs, your method doesn't work.
So why assume it should work with other topics as well?

And before you decide to say that you picked Jesus because it is the lowest, that is only true of the ones you selected. There could be plenty of others with even worse results.
For example, Mormonism with Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith produces 635 million results, but there are only 14.8 million Mormons.
That is a ratio of 0.023.
Applying that much lower ratio to your FEers gives a mere 12.3 million.

It would also mean you can't say if FE or NASA has more, as they could have different ratios.

Update October 22, 2019

Flat Earth: 301m
NASA: 637m
Jesus: 1.650m

We'll use same method that we always use.

Number of Jesus believers: 2.200.000.000
Search to jesus: 1.650.000.000
Search to flat earth: 301.000.000
Search to nasa: 637.000.000

Number of flat earth believers by using ratio:
2.200.000.000 x 301.000.000 / 1.650.000.000 = 401.333.333

Number of NASA believers by using ratio:
2.200.000.000 x 637.000.000 / 1.650.000.000 = 849.333.333

https://www.ccn.com/google-manipulates-search-results-former-engineer-shockingly-confirms/

We'll use same method that we always use.

Then you will get pure nonsense, just like you always do.

Using the same method you still get between 2x and 3x the population of Earth believing in water.

As such all you are doing is combining a bunch of numbers to get a completely meaningless result.

You are yet to substantiate your claim that this method works.

Using google search as a measure to see how many people believe in certain things is silly.
But lets play that game.
If your method of calculating Flat Earth Believers is a good measure then according to google trends

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=flat%20earth,unicorn,Hogwarts,star%20wars


There are more than 2.5 times more people who believe Hogwarts than the Flat Earth
12 times more people believe in unicorns
and 23 times more people believe in Star Wars than the Flat Earth


Never mind NASA, The Flat Earth is being crushed by the force.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

And you might not know, but when the two Societies were in talks of joining Forces®, one of the pain points was username wise. If I remember correctly the other Society did not want him on board, but as this Society considers him a stalwart defender of FE, he is still here.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

And you might not know, but when the two Societies were in talks of joining Forces®, one of the pain points was username wise. If I remember correctly the other Society did not want him on board, but as this Society considers him a stalwart defender of FE, he is still here.

Horses don't die just because dogs want it.

Exactly! You keep on rocking, man!

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

And you might not know, but when the two Societies were in talks of joining Forces®, one of the pain points was username wise. If I remember correctly the other Society did not want him on board, but as this Society considers him a stalwart defender of FE, he is still here.

It makes sense that they wanna keep him around. There are very few vocal flat earth proponents around that still have something to say. Also, makes sense why the other site does not want him, have you seen what he says?!