"is that there is is a two week reporting lag"

"Centers... have" or "Center... has"

"does not need to understand"

How about we switch the names with the policies here: Anna is the one who uses umbrella and Bob is the one who uses shamans. Or perhaps we can make both decision makers of identical gender so we can forgo the problem of stereotyping women as irrational beings resorting to unscientific methods.

needed?

The expression "crawling the website" sounds like it misses a preposition or maybe I am not in sync with the latest lingo.

"with" instead of "to" will make the sentence easier to read.

Is it correct to only place the possessive to the last author? Perhaps rephrasing will eliminate the need for this.

or "social networks evolution"?

Consider rephrasing.

double bracket at the end

best-case-scenario?

it is an indicator

Any chance another metaphor could be found for this idea?

Brings in mind: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

What is this exactly?

"come from the fact that in the digital age companies.."

Where is "above"? In the previous chapter?

"by performing"?

Perhaps "the" instead of "these"?

Again, from the perspective of the present moment, it would be great if the current US presidential election cycle could in some shape be mentioned here if studies are available on the popularity of the headlines from fake newspapers like "The Denver Guardian" and so on.

This is absolutely fascinating, thank you for including this in your book.

"when big data sources appear" or "when big data source appears"

Perhaps singular? Case?

Consider "that data sources are" instead of "found data are"?

It looks a bit like there were "2013 protesters" so perhaps "during the 2013 Occupy Gezi Park protests" or "2013 protests"?

I wish that your book could come out after some studies of the current presidential election cycle in the US were complete - it would be a fascinating addition, I think.

This sentence has some singular/plural use issue to resolve - to me it seems like "some analyses" sounds better, since there are multiple analyses.

This needs not?

Is this accent in front of pocket intentional?

Is it worth here to mention briefly why? Cost prohibitive? Etc.

I am missing a sentence here about how exactly data operationalize theoretical constructs, or what this phrase actually means.

It seems like there is an important point being made here but the way it is attached at the end of this sentence makes me miss it - are the relationships those theoretical constructs? Perhaps saying "logs do not directly include information about the theoretical constructs in many existing theories, namely human relationships" might be helpful but it still does not sound ideal.

I got the impression that reactivity is the property of the participant who is supplying big data to the platforms for collection but now it sounds like this is also property of the big data systems - is reactivity meant to mean the same thing here?

It sounds a bit like the respondent talked to a journal. I wonder if this could be turned into a story of Newman as a human researcher.

I suggest just going straight to the term: "Social scientists generally call this behavior reactivity." And then making use of the word "reactivity" to reinforce the concept in the following senteces.

Perhaps: "by means of a process called drift" or "in a process called drift"

That's a great point.

I know this is an informal book and all but it's so hard to be cool with this explicit value judgment in scholarly writing! It's taking me a while to get used to it. Do people in the industry use "bad" and "good" or do they use "correct" or "incorrect" or "useful" and "futile" or something along those lines?

We just heard about "three" and now it's "ten" - so that's hard to keep track of, and then I see below another division in "two" is coming up. What happened to the three?

Every time I see a promise made in such a form I sort of wish I had more information about what these "three research approaches" will be so I can make better choice about what to read. Listing them would be helpful and will not detract from the way the book reads, which is already great, but for someone who is trying to learn and organize this information in her head, it helps to get it right away.

Are those surveys always written surveys without the help or presence of a researcher? I am wondering about the agent of data collection here if that has any implications for your typology.

Any reason not to even briefly mention those three themes here?

Those must not be academic researchers, they are researchers employed at technology companies, right? I somehow feel like there is a distinction to be made between public and private access to data.

Weapons of Math Destruction by Cathy O'Neill has great insights about the complexity of algorithms and bias. Can we really eliminate bias by keeping the algorithm or research simple?

Two strong arguments for it: sustainability (using what you already have or someone else has) and that up to now launching new data collection/creation is sometimes cost prohibitive. That is, as you are showing, changing.

world, then repurposes it as art.

At this point it has occurred to me finally that data scientists in this book are mostly quantitative data scientists - is that fair to say? Because it seems like qualitative data scientists, of which there are many, for example employed at Facebook in a role of Ethnographer, or otherwise engaging in Computer Human Interaction or User Experience/Inferface/Interaction research, are also data scientists, except their data is qualitative. Is this going to be discussed anywhere? I guess I'll find out.

"movies and a photo" - somehow this set up eases my mind a little, because, well, they are the same.

think "about everywhere" or italicize online and everywhere

• as a side note, I believe that this applies mostly to first world shops, mostly large shops, and mostly non-grocery shops. All these exceptions do not usually conduct a tight inventory.

measured or measurable?

Kitchen appliances but also probably medical implants.

I like how this leads to ubiquitous computing later on.

affect in possibly harmful ways instead of harm -- for a glass half full perspective this is a rather fatalistic suggestion!

Is it too far out to suggest that it allowes to tackle poverty more effectively?

It's interesting to read that the inkblot tests are a derivative of one's background as I always thought it was a psychological analytical tool which depended on someone's internal emotional state.

I almost want to read here something like "because of how easy it is to scale them, create new possibilities.. etc"

Perhaps change "," to "–" or add "known/recognized as the gold standard of"

"all of this together" -- in the spirit of informal tone of this book and because the word "estimate" repeats a lot.

Are surveys of this type usually uncompensated?

It would be interesting to know their institutional affiliation.

I would be more comfortable with "valuable" or "meaningful" or "useful" or even the terrible "impactful" and leave the notions of beauty out of this. That's just me.

"some time" perhaps?