Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol why would SF not be even considered for this? And for that fact a city like Seattle or Austin? Or Miami? Atlanta? Makes no sense. What a flawed study.
No I'm not faulting you. I read the article too and thought they chose the headline poorly. I feel the same way as you do about these lists.
I think the problem lies with the news publishers who rename these studies for attention grabbing purposes. The original title from IESE was "Cities In Motion Index 2014", somehow this was translated to "The Best Cities On the Planet" by Business Insider.
I think the problem lies with the news publishers who rename these studies for attention grabbing purposes. The original title from IESE was "Cities In Motion Index 2014", somehow this was translated to "The Best Cities On the Planet" by Business Insider.
Exactly.
I think this list is about cities that are changing. Boston and San Francisco are already "there" for all intents and purposes.
Thanks for the spelling correcting whoever that was
Last edited by RightonWalnut; 05-16-2014 at 01:03 PM..
Dallas is a smart city and the city have the brain's so what is the big deal?
Dallas is a city that know how to grow and the people keep the money in the economy and that is a smart move.Dallas people also know how to stay in the city instead of taking tons of trips to other cities that keep money in the city as well.Dallas has brought uptown and downtown together which is a mission accomplish which make it look more urbanized.Dallas also have more shopping per cap then any American city including NYC,L.A. etc........
Dallas basically earned its way on the list despite the hatters just being plain hatters.
It's like this you might like bananas and I might like apples but does that make a person better then the other no.
If you read the study, there were originally 135 cities selected; in the United States, these were:
Baltimore
Chicago
Dallas
Houston
Los Angeles
Minneapolis-Saint Paul
New York
and Philadelphia
San Francisco was not selected for study (and neither were other cities that would have been no-brainers to be on the list.) A statistician would say that this study is "flawed" because it didn't account for "all" cities.
As to why San Francisco and other cities were not initially selected for the study, there doesn't seem to be any indication. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
The study would more appropriately have been labeled "Of a selected list of 135 cities, which is the smartest."
Rossia
Actually, the study states on page 23 that the initial pool of cities was 851. But I don't claim to know why the list was narrowed to 135.
Here's the text from p.23 of the study:
-- Throughout the process prior to the calculation of the indicators, data sufficiency and thoroughness tests were performed so that the inclusion of cities would be carried out in a way that would ensure the quality of the end product, in addition to analyzing the cities’ relevance. Information was analyzed
on 851 cities for which there was data on at least one selected variable. A series of criteria were applied for the selection of cities based on population size and the economic, political or cultural importance of the cities for the countries in which they are located.
After this, a series of analyses were completed on the existence of selected indicators used for calculation of the index; on the basis of this, those cities for which there were no data at all were excluded, as well as those which could not be assigned using clustering techniques, not even by making it flexible to acceptable
limits.
As a result of this process, 135 cities were included in this study, with the geographic distribution that is shown in Table 2. --
I'm so sorry that San Francisco wasn't chosen for the study, which naturally renders the entire study "flawed" and therefore worthless. Even so, I'm happy for Baltimore that of the 135 cities that were studied, it still ranked #20. Is it that hard to say congrats to a city that needs a pick-me-up?
Because we all know that if a similar-sized city such as Oakland, CA had made the list at #20, we would have heard about it well before now. And in that case, you certainly wouldn't be allowed to dismiss the study as flawed.
On a different note, the IESE study notes on page 44 that a city's score does not always equate to the city's overall reputation, which is compiled on a different study done by the Reputation Institute.
After reviewing that study, I have to report to you another "flawed" and worthless study because on the list of 100 world cities that ranks reputation, San Francisco ranks only 33. And we all know that can't be correct.
It's one thing to create a set of criteria (a certain population threshold or GMP, for example) or to analyse the fifty, or one hundred, or two hundred largest cities in the world. This would be an incredibly interesting study had it taken that objective approach.
However, this study suffers from the same inherent flaw as most similar studies: included cities are chosen at random. In theory, there could easily be dozens of cities in the world which are "better" than any of these cities--but simply weren't chosen for inclusion in the data comparisons.
San Francisco's really butt-hurt about this, isn't it.
I agree that SF should definitely be included. IMHO, it's "one" of the top 10 cities in the US (certainly not the top, *maybe* top 5). However SF folk, your city is not pre-ordained to be included in *any* list. SF is a good, maybe great city but it is certainly not entitled to anything. The blather and butthurt expressed by some people from SF on this ghastly omission is part of the reason that people sometimes resent San Franciscans and their precious holier-than-thou aire. It's certainly a nice city, but there are many other cities that did not make this list that can make the same case. They're just not here all complaining about it.
San Francisco's really butt-hurt about this, isn't it.
I agree that SF should definitely be included. IMHO, it's "one" of the top 10 cities in the US (certainly not the top, *maybe* top 5). However SF folk, your city is not pre-ordained to be included in *any* list. SF is a good, maybe great city but it is certainly not entitled to anything. The blather and butthurt expressed by some people from SF on this ghastly omission is part of the reason that people sometimes resent San Franciscans and their precious holier-than-thou aire. It's certainly a nice city, but there are many other cities that did not make this list that can make the same case. They're just not here all complaining about it.
And if Chicago wasn't included I'm sure their would be a lot from you guys as well
And if Chicago wasn't included I'm sure they're would be a lot from you guys as well
Probably. But that's not the case, is it? And there probably would not be as much bellyaching. You know it's true, don't you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The study results.
from you guys as well 
