<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Blackbeard Blog - Latest Comments in Goodhart&amp;#039;s Law and Market Research</title><link>http://blackbeardblog.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://blackbeardblog.disqus.com/goodhart039s_law_and_market_research/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:22:33 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Goodhart&amp;#039;s Law and Market Research</title><link>http://blackbeardblog.tumblr.com/post/217102577#comment-21257005</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is a nice post, thank you for sharing it.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Market Intelligence</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:22:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Goodhart&amp;#039;s Law and Market Research</title><link>http://blackbeardblog.tumblr.com/post/217102577#comment-20493147</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Doesn't this go back to the idea of the balanced scorecard? No matter what NPS advocates say, relying on one measure is dangerous (not least because of the knock on (potentially negative) effects it has on other factors). In the case of Twitter, if we considered followers, following, RTs, @replies and some sort of "velocity/recent activity" together (potentially with weighting), we would in a position to utilise a nuanced metric/metrics that are in turn difficult to game&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">curiouslypersistent</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:48:03 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>