I’m still lost as to what you were trying to say with lolita express as a search term, 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.
(edit: I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is. The data tracks pretty cleanly)
It seems pretty clear that the spike is due to the 2016 Trump/Epstein lawsuit.
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.
This is 2010 to 2016. The peak is shown in 2016, and another big jump in interest in 2015. Lets compare that same bit out to 2018.
Still has big peaks, specifically in 2015 and 2016.
Now lets go past the day he died - August 10th, 2019.
What happened to those peaks? Well, he died in custody, under very strange circumstances. Interest was higher, but there was awareness much earlier. What happened was a rapid spike in searches because of what happened, not because he was unknown.
Point being, Google Trends shows search activity, not commonality in awareness. Major events skew the chart. It does not, in any way, demonstrate the commonality of awareness of the existence of a person.
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 still lost as to what you were trying to say with lolita express as a search term, 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.
(edit: I'm genuinely confused as to what your point is. The data tracks pretty cleanly)
It seems pretty clear that the spike is due to the 2016 Trump/Epstein lawsuit.
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.
This is 2010 to 2016. The peak is shown in 2016, and another big jump in interest in 2015. Lets compare that same bit out to 2018.
Still has big peaks, specifically in 2015 and 2016.
Now lets go past the day he died - August 10th, 2019.
What happened to those peaks? Well, he died in custody, under very strange circumstances. Interest was higher, but there was awareness much earlier. What happened was a rapid spike in searches because of what happened, not because he was unknown.
Point being, Google Trends shows search activity, not commonality in awareness. Major events skew the chart. It does not, in any way, demonstrate the commonality of awareness of the existence of a person.
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.
Glad you two got it