Deliciousness to Cost Index

It has been a while since I posted last, and I suppose that may be the result of my laziness or just inability to sit down for a long enough period to write something. Since my last post, which was very early on in December, (and here we are already at the start of February), I have traveled to New York and Washington, DC. Both trips were phenomenal and I enjoyed my experiences there and the people with whom I shared it.

Either way, the reason I share that information regarding my trips is while I was in New York, a really interesting thought occurred to me and some of the people I was with. To give context to what I'm about to share with you, it's incredibly important to understand that New York's cost of living is astronomical. According to InfoPlease.com, the cost of living index for New York (Manhattan) was 212.1 in 2005. The next closest was San Francisco at 177. This should provide some sort of measure as to how unbelievably absurd it is to live a daily life in New York.

However, people still live in Manhattan and love the place. They say, "Who cares if it's really absurdly overpriced, this is the greatest place in the world to be." And you know what, I agree with them. New York is a fantastic city. Each street, each alleyway, each little neighborhood has its own unique feel, and there are so many of them that you may be able to spend a lifetime exploring this tiny island. After spending just a short time there, I can understand the allure.

Yet, there has got to be some way to objectively judge quality. Due to the fact that all goods and services are inflated in price, one may not recognize a good deal when he or she first sees it.

In order to combat this discrepancy, it is a must to create the Deliciousness to Cost Index. I attribute the name of this index to a fellow I met while in New York. We were walking around and thinking about places where we could eat. He suggested that we go to a place called Mamoun's Falafel, which he posited had the highest deliciousness to cost index in all of New York City.

Obviously, it is hard to verify his claim that Mamoun's has the highest deliciousness to cost index, considering that there are over 16,700 restaurants in Manhattan (which equals one restaurant a day for 46 years apparently). However, the food was definitely delicious, and it did not cost a bundle of money. Two critical factors in determining the index.

I suppose I've provided an example in which the Deliciousness to Cost Index may come into effect, but I haven't really provided any means through which one calculates this value. I provide the analyses here.

• Deliciousness to Cost Index

In order to arrive at the most sophisticated and accurate portrayal of the Deliciousness to Cost Index, I consulted with an acturial scientist at the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor. My conversation with him relating to the index was arduous and lengthy but our result is flawless.

The determination of the Deliciousness to Cost Index is based on the following equation:

1. Record the value (in Dollars) of the good (or service if edible)
2. Determine the amount of value (in Dollars) you feel that good (or service if edible) was actually worth
3. Divide the number from process 1 by the number from process 2
4. The quotient of process 1 divided by process 2 is the Deliciousness to Cost Index

As you can see, the process by which one arrives at the Deliciousness to Cost Index (DCI) is rather simple, yet it represents something very meaningful to the individual. In order to illustrate this point, I can provide an example.

Johnny is in Manhattan and enters into a restaurant called The Smith. While in The Smith, Johnny decides to order an Ahi Tuna Salad. This dish includes: mesclun greens, french beans, black olives, cherry tomatoes, and roasted peppers (according to The Smith). According to The Smith's online menu, the Ahi Tuna Salad costs $17. Johnny eats his meal and is pleasantly surprised by the rich taste, smooth texture, and is filled with content by his last bite. As a result, Johnny leaves The Smith happy and thinks that he would have easily paid $25 for such an experience. Therefore, The Smith would have a DCI rating of 1.47 ($25/$17).

Very simple measure, but it expresses how the individual feels about their purchase. It would be ideal to always have a DCI above 1.00. That would mean that the food, and its respective deliciousness, is consistenly beyond your expectations based on the price point originally given.

I think that a tool like the DCI could be enormously valuable to restaurants, bakeries, or any establishment that sells goods for consumption at a price. By getting an average of the DCI for consumers of a particular establishment, owners can determine at what price the public values their goods. If a restaurant sees that their DCI is on average 1.50, or consistently above 1.00, they may want to consider raising prices to that price point, because they are exceeding their consumers expectations.

A DCI of less than 1.00 is cause for concern, however. This means that people are consistenly unsatisfied with what they are eating. This can be counteracted by lowering prices of the goods being sold or by improving the quality (aka deliciousness) of the good.

• Conclusion

In this blog post, I propose the Deliciousness to Cost Index (DCI). The method to arrive at the DCI is to take the actual value of a good and divide it by an individual's perceived value of the good. Though the arithmetic is simple, it conveys an enormous amount of information that can be used effectively by owners of restaurants and other establishments that provide goods for consumption at a price. This is only truly achieved when the DCI is found on average amongst most or all consumers.

The next time you walk out of a restaurant, calculate your own DCI. You may be surprised.

Motive Imagery and The Spread of Ideas

A couple weeks ago I ran a quick survey on my website, Those Answers, in order to gather data about the affect (if any) that motive imagery may play on the spread of ideas. I was interested in finding out if there was one particular class of motive imagery that people are more or less likely to disseminate.

Motive imagery is a psychological phenomenon that is rooted in the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), in which a person tells a fantastical story about anything or may be guided by the use of images, sounds, or ideas. Based on the language and tones that people use to elicit their thoughts, whether they are stern or sweet, hopeful or sad, angry or happy, can indeed tell you about the current psychological state of that individual.

Motive imagery is then broken down into three core categories (there is actually a fourth dimension to motive imagery, but that will not be explained in this post). The classifications of motive imagery are rather simple, but are phenomenally complex when one explores their intricacies and how they were originally determined.

There is achievement motive imagery, which is based on positive evaluations, a desire to do better, positive goal oriented performance, or unique acts performed. There is affiliation/intimacy motive imagery, which is based on the longing for togetherness, sad feelings about separation, or the desire to help in a genuine way. Finally, there is power motive imagery, which is based on force and regulation and a need to impress others.

Motive imagery was established in the early 1950's by a famed psychologist at Harvard named David McClelland. McClelland asserted that by categorizing and collecting data on these TAT tests, one could establish deep, underlying motivations that people possessed. His work has been built on further by David Winter at the University of Michigan and Richard Boyatzis at Case Western Reserve University.

I am currently conducting an in depth research study on the role motive imagery plays in the corporate world. As I go on this adventure, my mind wanders, and I felt like gathering some data on another aspect of human psychology that motive imagery may be responsible for, and that is the dissemination of ideas.

When people hear information, they need to interpret that information for themselves, process it, store it, and then if they engage in social activities in which they can share that information, disperse it if they decide it is worthy.

I think that the concept of the transfer of ideas is mind blowing. Essentially, an idea is birthed in someone's mind, is uttered in a usable form of language to another organism that can go through the process described above, and then that other organism, feeling so compelled by the information they received makes a conscious decision to seek out and share other organisms with which it can spread the idea or information further.

There is a great deal of relevance to this dissection. In today's world where information is readily available and accessible at all times almost anywhere on the planet (newspapers, phones, Internet, television, etc.), one ought to wonder how human's decide on which ideas are the most pertinent, important, and really, worthy of our own cognitive functioning.

As a result of this inundation of information and knowledge, advertisers and news media have started to rely more heavily on Word of Mouth Marketing (WOMM), which is considered the best form of sharing ideas because it has the greatest impact and lasting effect on the individual with whom the idea is being shared.

Thus, are there ways to ensure that this information is disseminated more frequently? How do you encourage your idea or information to be spread via Word of Mouth? Is there a way to improve the odds?

With these questions in mind, I conducted the following study which I explain here:

• Idea Dissemination Study

Starting at 6:00 am on November, 19 2008 until 9:00 am November, 24 2008, a group of 36 individuals were randomly sampled and were asked to take a survey. The individuals were sampled from my current Friends list on my Facebook account.

I feel the sample is validly random just based on the mere nature of the demographics of my friends, but in order to further substantiate the validity, I cross checked the locations from which the survey was accessed via Google Analytics over the November 19 to November 24 time period, and there were 83 unique visits from 40 cities around the United States. A majority of the visits came from Ann Arbor, Michigan, but there were several from: Bloomington, New York, Ypsilanti, Chicago, Northbrook, Palo Alto, Ft. Collins, Greencastle, Manhattan, etc.


The 36 individuals who filled out the survey were given the following information when filling out the survey, "Provided are some 'News Headlines' pulled from the same news source. Please determine which one of the three options provided in each case you would most likely share with another person."

The news source (newspaper, television, magazine, etc.) was left up to the individual. Future studies may want to classify which news source the participant is reading the "News Headline" from because there may be some variability between sources.

Participants were then asked to select a single headline from a list of three options. The three options provided headlines in one of each of the three forms of motive imagery (achievement, affiliation, and power). News headlines varied and were on several different topics from energy, to the Big Three, to the Economic Crisis, to Shrimp and Picnics.

Individuals were then asked, "Why?" after each selection, in which they could write down anything they wanted. Most of them made comments relating to their choice in picking the headline. It was an optional field for all five questions, and some fields were indeed left blank.

The participants then submitted their answers and were taken to a screen that explained the nature of the study and further reading that they could do on the topic.

The information that the participants submitted was then collected in a database and then converted into an Excel document. The number of times each motive imagery category was then calculated as a proportion of the total amount of responses. There was one question left blank by the 36 participants, which means that there were 179 (instead of 180) responses.

• Results

To analyze the data, I used a one-proportion z-test (equation seen below) in order to test each motive imagery category against the null hypothesis that there is an equal likelihood that each motive imagery category would be selected. Therefore, I expected each motive imagery category could be selected one-third or 33.3% of the time.


A z-score allows you to attain a standard score in which you can then determine the p-value, or the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, given that the null hypothesis is true. The p-value is defined by the area under the curve in a normal distribution, seen below. The maximum area of a normal distribution with a z-score is 1. The z-score is found on the x-axis of the graph. Based on this z-score table, the p-value is found by subtracting the z-score from 1, essentially subtracting the shaded area from the whole graph, which gives the probability of observing as extreme a result as the outcome observed.
In order for a result to be considered statistically significant, it ought be at least below 5%, which is quite a liberal p-value. In this experiment, I consider results below 5% to be statistically significant.

The results of the survey were:

• Achievement Motive Imagery Sentences Selected: 60/179 or 0.335 (33.5%)
• Affiliation Motive Imagery Sentences Selected: 73/179 or 0.408 (40.8%)
• Power Motive Imagery Sentences Selected: 46/179 or 0.257 (25.7%)
  

By doing the one-proportion z-test for each of the three motive imagery categories, I arrive at the following z-scores:

• Achievement Motive Imagery: 0.05
• Affiliation Motive Imagery: 2.11
• Power Motive Imagery: -2.17

By using a z-score table, provided here, I find the p-values:

• Achievement Motive Imagery: 0.5199 or 51.99%
  
• Affiliation Motive Imagery: 0.9826 or 98.26%
  
• Power Motive Imagery: 0.015 or 1.5%

These are very fascinating results that need a little further discussion.

• Discussion

Based on the findings of this study, it appears as though there is a significant relationship between affiliation and power motive imagery and dissemination of ideas. This can be deduced by the relatively high and low p-value scores. The score of 98.26% indicates that in only 1.74% of the cases would I expect to find an equally extreme result as those found in this study. That is well under 5%. Additionally, the 1.5% from power motive imagery reveals that in only 1.5% of cases would I expect to find the results that I found for power motive imagery and idea dissemination, which is also below 5%. Unfortunately, achievement motive imagery cannot reject the null hypothesis that it would be equally distributed because of its p-value of 51.99%, well above 5%.

These results indicate to me that ideas that are framed with affiliation motive imagery in mind are most likely to be disseminated, while those ideas that are framed with power motive imagery are least likely to be disseminated.

There are several shortcomings of this research that counter these statistical findings. For instance, the survey just asked individuals which statements they "would most likely share" with another person, and doesn't test it practically. The actual act of telling has not yet occurred, and is thus just the best guess on the behalf of the participant.

Furthermore, and building on the previous idea, participants may have selected headlines that just interested them and not one's they would necessarily take the time to spread to others. Several people cited in their "why?" statements that the article interested them, however, many also made reference to the fact that the headline interested people they knew, which leads one to believe that the idea was generated with the other people in mind. These conflicting points are irreconcilable in the scope of this study, and I urge others to address this in the future.

It is counter-intuitive that ideas that are warm and fuzzy, the type that are common to affiliation motive imagery, would likely be disseminated. Studies have shown that the news is filled with violence and negative stories, and people are more likely to spread that kind of news (Source). These findings go against that notion, especially when power motive imagery headlines, more common for force, control, and regulation was least likely to be disseminated. Perhaps the issues and characters involved in the headline is more significant. That idea is beyond the research question of this study.

• Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the three categories of motive imagery on the frequency in disseminating ideas. In order to evaluate this, a short survey was given to 36 randomly sampled individuals in which they selected headlines that they would most likely share with others.

The findings indicate a statistically significant result for affiliation motive imagery and power motive imagery. Affiliation motive imagery headlines were shown to be most likely to be disseminated while power motive imagery headlines were shown to be least likely to be disseminated. Both were statistical at the 5% level.

Deciding on which issues are most important to us may indeed be a function of motive imagery, but these findings need to be further substantiated with more testing. There are several alternative hypotheses that were not addressed in this study that may impact the validity of the results.

Maybe it is just all about the words we hear and how we hear them that makes a subconscious decision about what is most important to us and what we choose to tell others. These results are but a a first step in finding the answer.

Reciprocity of a Drinking Game

Yesterday evening, my friends played a drinking game before heading out to the bar. Because I wasn't planning on going out, but still wanted to enjoy their company, I decided to monitor the tendencies of their drinking game.

The rules of the game were pretty simple. It is a game that involves cards and decisions by the players. When cards are dealt, players will either have to "take," or drink for a specified amount of time based on the round, or "give" a specified amount of time to drink based on the round.

The first couple rounds go swiftly. Cards are dealt one-by-one to players in a counterclockwise order. The cards are dealt face up and in each round a player receives only one card.

During the first round, players are asked

 to guess whether the card is red or black. If they guess correctly, they can "give" the value associated with the first round (2 seconds) to another player, but if they are wrong, then they have to "take" those 2 seconds. In the second round, players are asked if their next card will be higher or lower than the card they already have. The same rules apply if they are right or wrong, except now it extends to 4 seconds. 

The third round asks players to determine whether the card will be inside or outside of the range of cards that they have. For instance, if a player has drawn a 7 of spades and an 8 of hearts, it is likely that the next card will be outside of the range, whereas, a player with a 2 of diamonds and a king of clubs would probably guess inside. The same rules apply for being right or wrong, except now it is 6 seconds. 

The fourth and final round of the preliminary rounds asks players to guess which suit their card will be. If players are correct, they can "give" 8 seconds, but have to "take" 8 seconds if they are wrong.

After the preliminary round, the game enters into a phase called, Fireworks. The picture above gives the breakdown of how Fireworks is setup. As you can see there are several cards used in Fireworks, all face down to begin with. There are two columns of cards, one "take" and one "give" that increase in their intensity from 2 seconds to 8 seconds, similar to the opening rounds (this is represented in the illustration by the number following the word Card). On the wings are four more cards that raise the level of intensity. On the left side, there are two cards, one "take" and one "give" for half a beer. On the right side, there are two cards, one "take" and one "give" for a whole beer. The order in which Fireworks occur is by starting with "Card 2" in the Take Column, and then "Card 2" in the Give Column. This continues through "Card 8" for both Take and Give. Then Take and Give is done for Half and then Full.

The way in which this portion of the game works, is if any of the four cards you received during the preliminary round match in value (8's, Kings, Jacks, 4's, etc.) to those that get flipped, you must "take" or "give" depending on the card's designation. 

It's a phenomenal game and a lot of fun to play or watch. 

I thought it would be interesting to map out some of the decisions that were made in terms of "giving" drinking quotas to other people. Though this is a friendly game, harsh decisions have to be made at times as to who has to drink. I've also considered that as the game progresses, participants are most likely becoming further inebbriated, which may effect their decision-making processes, but this effect is inherent to the system. I was interested if any patterns would emerge based on some sort of reciprocity, and as I expected, something quite concrete can be deduced from this very simple but telling game about social networks.

• Explanation

Above is a visual representation of the decisions made by participants in their first game of play recorded. There were five total participants, each depicted as a "Smiling Face." The boxes either above, below, or to the side of the faces are how I will make reference to distinctive actions made by that player. The visual representation is supposed to give scope as to the actual seating arrangements of the individuals playing the game, which I assert makes significant impact on the decisions of the players. I was seated between JG and SS and was not participating in the game.

I propose that seating is the most important factor determining decisions in the game. Starting from the left side: ZS was sitting on a chair by himself. JG, Tyrone Schiff, and SS were sitting on a couch together. MK and MB were sitting on a seperate couch perpendicular to JG, Tyrone Schiff, and SS, facing ZS. There is a rectangular table between the groups.

There are clear trends that can be noticed from the outset. SS and ZS engaged in a "war" during the game, consistently being given decisions (which is based on luck), and consistently "giving" the designated value to one another. SS and ZS were also seated quite far away from one another, at least on opposite sides of the table. 

SS was given several opportunities to "give," but made them consistently towards ZS. He could have just as easily "spread the wealth" by "giving" to JG, MK, and MB, but chose to direct his efforts to a member farthest away from him.

There are several underlying causes of this. One consideration is mere comradary. ZS and SS may be good buddies and want to get each other "wasted" to have a fun night at the bar. However, all the individuals playing the game are all trying to get "wasted" and are equally good buddies. This is not a qualifying argument. 

Another cause could possibly be based on the Feedback effect. As SS makes more decisions to "give" to ZS, ZS comes back at SS and "gives" to him in order to "level the score." This argument has slightly more merit. However, one must realize that the players are all reasonable people and wouldn't intentionally engage in "war" with another if they had other options available. "War" is undesirable, and none of the players at the table would choose to wage it rationally.

This leaves us with the prevailing theory that decision making was based on seating arrangements. This is well evidenced by SS's decisions. While SS had 5 decisions to make, more than any other person, he directed his "giving" to only one person, and that person was farthest away. He did not "give" to MK, who was very close but on another couch, or MB, slightly farther away, but not the farthest, nor did he "give" to JG, a member of his same couch. SS clearly looked for a member of an outgroup in which he could get others to gang up on.

And they did. In closest proximity to SS was MK. MK, with only 3 decisions, decided to spend one of them on ZS, influenced by the actions of SS and feeling comfortable with the distance between them. 

The distance and seating argument is further evidenced by actions of MK and MB on JG. MK and MB are members of the same couch. MB, with only 1 decision, chose to spend it on JG, and MK spent 2 out of 3 of his decisions on JG. MB and MK were located equally as far away from JG as SS and ZS were. The fact that they were working together and the "extreme" distance between the parties made it okay to gang up on this one player.

MK and MB also attacked each other by "giving" one decision to each. However, once the decision was reciprocated, the two never "gave" to one another again, indicating a truce of sorts, and an understanding of using their strength elsewhere on farther targets.

The decision by JG may seem a little incongruous with the proposed theory of distance being the most important factor, but a brief analysis makes sense of his decision.

JG had no reason to "give" to SS. They are members of the same couch and SS had never targeted JG before. It is then likely that JG would attack either MK or MB, because they "gave" to him and JG would like his revenge. However, JG was only provided with 1 decision, and it would have been futile to "give" to either MK or MB. There are two reasons for this.

First, by "giving" to only one of the members, MK or MB, the revenge isn't sweet at all. JG can only make one of his attackers suffer. The full effect of the decision is thus inconsequential; there is no statement made by JG's decision. Second, JG, realizing that he was a target of attack, didn't want to further annoy or anger MK or MB by "giving" to them. JG was already being targeted for being far away from MB and MK, an attack on them would just motivate MK and MB to "give" to JG more frequently.

Thus, JG "gave" to ZS, a fellow member of attack. There are several reasons why this may be the case. JG could try to win support from SS or MK, so they would both view JG as an ally. JG does this for MK so that he would no longer attack him, based on their mutual agreement to attack ZS. JG does this for SS so that if ZS, MK, or MB "gives" to JG, SS may counterattack on behalf of JG, due to the fact that they have a mutual understanding of attacking ZS and because they are members of the same couch. 

• Conclusion

The object of this study was to try and understand the decision making processes involved in playing a drinking game. 

After excluding alternative hypotheses, decision making during this drinking game can most accurately be attributed to the location in which someone sits relative to the other players.

ZS was thus a "sitting duck" from the start. He was farthest away from three of the four players, not including himself, and also sat in a chair with no other person. SS and JG were "members" of the same couch, just as MK and MB were "members" of a different couch. This team-like or shared experience as "members" of the same couch is remarkably strong in shifting decisions. Allegiances were tested, as MK and MB reveal, but ultimately, the majority of the decisions were based on how far someone was located away from the decision maker.

Word Frequency Measurement

I came across a fascinating product today that Google operates. The product is Google Trends and visually displays information relating to search queries that could be entered into a Google search. It's unbelievable comprehensive. Aside from providing a line graph of the relative search volume since 2004, it also provides you with the ability to narrow your search to particular regions of the world or even singular countries. For a person who wants to use Google as their advertising medium on the Internet, this feature is without doubt a must. Understanding where and why people are searching for the terms they are is a critical feature that sets Google apart from the rest.

You can also localize your search term trend for a particular span in time. So, if you are only interested in how people have been searching for these words within the past 30 days, you can set that option very easily. If you are particularly interested in how many times that search term was queried in a particular month since January 2004, Google Trends will allow you to set that.

The graph has an interesting dependent variable called Search Volume Index. On Google Trend's About page they define it as "how many searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time."

Just below the graph are three columns at are unbelievably helpful in understanding how exactly the search term you're looking at is used. There is a column for regions, which specifies the rank of usage by country. Then, next to that column is an even more specific look at where the search term is being queried by ranking the cities by usage. As you will see later, the city in which the search term is queried the most is quite intuitive. Finally, the last column is what language that term is most queried in. Most of the tests that I've performed have had the most usage in English, however, it is fascinating to see how the rest of the queries not in English relating to the search term rank by language.

Probably one of the coolest features about Google Trends is its pairing with relevant news articles. Below the primary graph that reveals search volume there is a another graph called New Reference Volume. "This graph shows you the number of times your topic appeared in Google News stories." When there are spikes in the search term volume, Google Trends automatically flags the occurrence and links the spike to an actual news article, which probably explains the spike in search term volume.

It's an amazing feat of computational engineering. When it comes to understanding how people are using the Internet in terms of what their searching, I cannot think of a better source than Google Trends. Google has approximately 60% market share of all search queries, and this data is contigent on that sample. Google Trends is comprehensive and provides the user with the relevant information that he or she is looking for.

In order to gain further understanding of Google Trends, I ran a quick study in order to familiarize myself with the options and processes available.

• Google Trends Study

This study was conducted on November 8, 2008 at approximately 7:30pm. The purpose of the study was to gain familiarity with Google Trends and make comparisons of search term usage for a randomly sampled set of search terms across regions.

The study sampled three words from three randomly sampled individuals living in my house. Participants were asked to, "provide three words that could be possible search queries in a well known search engine, like Google." The individuals choosing the words sat together and were asked to recite them aloud. This would ensure that participants didn't provide duplicate words.

After the participants gave me three randomly selected words each, they were asked to, "provide a country somewhere in the world aside from the United States." Each participant then selected the country in the same fashion that they provided the words. Some participants took longer than others; one participant was still selecting words while another had already provided both their words and country. The time length in which the participants finish their selections is not terribly important, however, it should be done in a reasonable amount of time.

Participants were also asked to predict the relative search volume of their three words from highest to lowest across the world.

The following table summarizes each participant's selections and the order in which they expect their search volume to be from highest to lowest:

As you can see, there was a rich diversity in the words that were selected. Participant 2 focused on more Proper Nouns than regular nouns like the other participants involved, yet, still a sufficiently random sample.

• Participant 1

[To see worldwide results please click each of these respective words: Drugs, Cowboy, Cardboard]

Upon requesting search volumes for the three words provided by Participant 1 in Djibouti, Google Trends was unable to provide search volume information citing the following:

Your terms - ????? - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.

Suggestions:

• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
  
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords.
• Try fewer keywords.
• Try viewing data for all years and all regions.

The subsequent 6 search terms provided by Participant 2 and 3 were then also searched for in the Djibouti database rendering the same message. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be sufficient search queries of these provided words from Djibouti to elicit graphs. This is an unfortunate finding based on our study. It appears as though Google Trends, while comprehensive, is indeed fallible.

After trying to insert search queries that I thought would have sufficient volume to represent graphically (United States, Barack Obama), I eventually input "Djibouti," which finally elicited results. The search term, "Djibouti" is most commonly searched for in Djibouti, Djibouti, when narrowing the results to just Djibouti results. The most common language that Djibouti is searched for in Djibouti is French. There was a spike in search volume for "Djibouti" in Djibouti on June 12, 2008 when an article was published entitled, "UN council condemns Eritrean attack."

This can be compared to search queries for the term "Djibouti"

from all regions around the world. "Djibouti" is most commonly searched for in Regions like Djibouti, United Arab Emirates, Morroco, and France. Some cities where "Djibouti" is most commonly searched for include Dubayy, UAE, Ottawa, Canada, and Rennes, France. French, English, Swedish, and Dutch are most common languages when searching for "Djibouti."

Participant 1 correctly predicted the order in which the search terms provided would be relative to one another across the world. It is interesting to note that the order the participant gave the words is the same order that was predicted for highes

t to lowest search volume. The graph visually depicts the relationship between Drugs, Cowboy, and Cardboard in terms of their worldwide search volume.

• Participant 2
  

[To see worldwide results please click each of these respective words: Synthesizer, Rex Grossman, Mr. Feeney]

Similar to the Participant 1, the words provided by Participant 2 did not have enough search volume in Malta for a graph to be displayed. This is again another unfortunate occurrence. The same technique was used for Participant 2 as was for Participant 1 in attempting to find some sort of graph. The other 6 search queries did not provide any sort of graphical depiction either.

In order to gather some results, I input the search query, "Malta" to elicit some sort of results within the Malta Google Trends database. Fortunately, this was able to provide some sort of graph with relevant news articles that coincided with spikes in the volume.

In Malta, the search term, "Malta" is most frequently searched for in Msida, San Gwann, and Valleta, all cities in Malta and in that order. The most common language "Malta" is searched for in Malta by frequency is German, English, and Maltese. One of the highest peaks in News Reference Volume within the Malta database when searching for the query "Malta" was on November 20, 2007, when an article entitled, "Queen to Celebrate in Malta," was published on News24.com.

Compare these results to worldwide trends for searching "Malta." Some of the most popular regions searching for "Malta" are Malta, Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy, and Austria. Some of the most popular cities are the three Maltese cities already mentioned, followed by, Poznan, Poland, Dublin, Ireland, and Thames Ditton, United Kingdom.

Participant 2 was correct in the predictions made about the order in which relative search volume would occur. Synthesizer has a higher relative search volume to that of Rex Grossman, and by virtue of there not being enough data on Mr. Feeney, one can deduce that Rex Grossman has a higher relative search volume than Mr. Feeney. This is visually represented below.

• Participant 3
  

[To see worldwide results please click each of these respective words: Arsenic, Stencil, Magician]

Similar to the past two participants, all word choices by Participant 3, arsenic, stencil, and magician elicited no graphical results in the Belgium Database of Google Trends. Upon further review, some words provided by Participant 1 (Drugs & Cowboy) elicited results, but for fairness to each participant, I will conduct the same analysis as I have done for the prior two.

Therefore, I will share results from quering the search term "Belgium" in the Belgium database. The most prominent subregions that query the search term "Belgium" are Flemish Brabant, East Flanders, Brussels, and Luxembourg. Major cities querying "Belgium" include Leuven, Gent, and Brussels. The language that "Belgium" is usually queried in is English, Dutch, and French (in that order).

Recently, there was a surge in the News Reference Volume relating to the search query of "Belgium" within Belgium that linked to a story entitled, "First Industrial to Invest in New State-of-the-Art Logistics Facilities in Belgium." The story was published on October 6, 2008 and led to the highest New Reference Volume in the Belgium Database of Google Trends for the search query "Belgium" ever.

Compare this to worldwide searches for the search query "Belgium." The major regions in which "Belgium" is searched for occur in Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Cities outside of the Belgium that most frequently query the search term "Belgium" include London, United Kingdom, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Syndey, Australia, and New York, New York. Around the world, the most commonly used language to query the search term "Belgium" is Dutch, French, English, German, and Italian (in that order).

Participant 3 incorrectly predicted the relative search volumes of the three randomly selected words provided. Based on worldwide Google Trends data, the relative search volumes of the words Arsenic, Stencil, and Magician are correctly ordered as Stencil, Magician, and Arsenic. Stencil is relatively searched for 2.65 times more than arsenic, and Magician is searched for approximately twice as much as arsenic. The graph below reveals this relationship.

• Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to gain familiarity with the product Google Trends and make comparisons between the relative search volume of randomly selected words.

While Google Trends contains a wide breadth of data on search volumes, there is desperate need for its regional databases to contain more comprehensive data. Search queries in the Djibouti, Malta, and Belgium databases hardly provided any results when inputting some randomly selected words. Either these databases should not be provided to begin with, or they need to be more comprehensive in nature.

Two of the three participants in the study were correctly able to predict the relative search volume of their provided terms. This suggests that Google Trends provides intuitive knowledge. However, it is well evidenced by Participant 3 that the relative search volumes for particular words may be harder to predict.

Overall, Google Trends is a phenomenal resource that provides superb measurements of the relative search volumes of typical search queries performed on the Internet.