This is very interesting.
I wonder, have you considered if the Google Trend line should in fact be 3-5 days behind the exchange traded price of bitcoins?
Once someone finds about bitcoins via Google, it does take quite a few days to get setup, funded and trading on those BTC exchanges. So there would be a delayed effect, assuming there is a causal effect between Google Trend and the exchange price of bitcoins.
Just a thought.
SJ
Topic: My earlier google trend correlation still holding strong, crash predictable - page 2. (Read 7943 times)
July 04, 2011, 10:41:50 PM
July 04, 2011, 10:22:25 PM
I think it's more of a feedback loop than just search volume -> price.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Why wouldn't the correlation break at that point? A huge drop in prices should generate news, which should lead to a higher trend then price. Or are you arguing that speculators haven't bailed yet?
(Above theory is probably wrong
)
July 04, 2011, 08:34:52 PM
How do you make Google give you the list?
You kidnap their children for ransom. Works every time. Just be sure to use a voice scrambler when you call or they will track you down.
July 04, 2011, 06:31:41 PM
It works if you import it into Excel.
July 04, 2011, 06:28:04 PM
Is there tabular data for that index?
I would like to take a closer look at it and quantify that correlation a little more precisely.
I would like to take a closer look at it and quantify that correlation a little more precisely.
http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=bitcoin&graph=all_csv&sa=N
I'd love you to take a look at it, your statistical analysis is always very good.
All I got from that is a bunch of weird characters
Code:
⁙⁵†⁵⁴††††⁴†⁸⁰⁴†⁴††⁇†⁔
How do you make Google give you the list?
July 04, 2011, 06:27:36 PM
I think it's more of a feedback loop than just search volume -> price.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Why wouldn't the correlation break at that point? A huge drop in prices should generate news, which should lead to a higher trend then price. Or are you arguing that speculators haven't bailed yet?
(Above theory is probably wrong
) July 04, 2011, 06:24:35 PM
OP your graph doesnt appear to actually predict anything (ie show something before it happens) it changes when the price changes. correlation but not prediction.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
I agree I dont think that crash at 32 had anything to do with lack of interest..
When it was at 32, interest was at its peak. You can decide which way it relates. There is a case both ways. I think the price got to 32 because there was so much interest, but interest died down, and so did the price.
Yeah who knows.. its a paradox marty.
July 04, 2011, 06:21:25 PM
I think it's more of a feedback loop than just search volume -> price.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Why wouldn't the correlation break at that point? A huge drop in prices should generate news, which should lead to a higher trend then price. Or are you arguing that speculators haven't bailed yet?
July 04, 2011, 06:19:38 PM
I think it's more of a feedback loop than just search volume -> price.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
Up price = news = speculators = up price = news, repeat, until speculators bail.
July 04, 2011, 06:18:50 PM
OP your graph doesnt appear to actually predict anything (ie show something before it happens) it changes when the price changes. correlation but not prediction.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
I agree I dont think that crash at 32 had anything to do with lack of interest..
When it was at 32, interest was at its peak. You can decide which way it relates. There is a case both ways. I think the price got to 32 because there was so much interest, but interest died down, and so did the price.
July 04, 2011, 06:17:08 PM
OP your graph doesnt appear to actually predict anything (ie show something before it happens) it changes when the price changes. correlation but not prediction.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
I agree I dont think that crash at 32 had anything to do with lack of interest..
July 04, 2011, 06:16:48 PM
Is there tabular data for that index?
I would like to take a closer look at it and quantify that correlation a little more precisely.
I would like to take a closer look at it and quantify that correlation a little more precisely.
http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=bitcoin&date=ytd&geo=all&graph=all_csv&sort=0&sa=N
I'd love you to take a look at it, your statistical analysis is always very good.
July 04, 2011, 06:14:32 PM
OP your graph doesnt appear to actually predict anything (ie show something before it happens) it changes when the price changes. correlation but not prediction.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
That is because google trends 12 month chart has a delay. Perhaps I should have used the term, justified, or expected, instead of predictable.
July 04, 2011, 06:11:10 PM
OP your graph doesnt appear to actually predict anything (ie show something before it happens) it changes when the price changes. correlation but not prediction.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
and the reason it is below near the end is that there is no price line to mach it against due to trading freeze, and then your graph ends.
July 04, 2011, 06:07:32 PM
https://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=bitcoin&date=mtd&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N
Sure looks flat to me.
Just like the trading price.
Sure looks flat to me.
Just like the trading price.
Looks like the peak was mid June (the 11th, 12th, 20th) and trending down since then.
July 04, 2011, 06:04:45 PM
Sure looks flat to me.
Just like the trading price.
You are looking at the last 30 days while the OP is looking at the last 12 months. Google does relative data scaling pertaining to the selected time frame. In the last 30 days they take the average of the data and set the average to 1. In the last 12 months they take the average over 12 months and set it to 1. Since nobody gave a shit about bitcoins until recently, the first 9 months of the 12 month graph bring the average way down.
July 04, 2011, 06:02:20 PM
Sure looks flat to me.
Just like the trading price.
July 04, 2011, 05:58:27 PM
Earlier I started a tread (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17318.0) about how price and bitcoin's google trend numbers are highly correlated. The only big price drop in the past was paired with a drop in the trend. I decided to see how well the current "crash" matches up with bitcoin's google trend numbers. It turns out, that the correlation still exists very strongly.
Image Below:
The blue line is the google trend line for bitcoin, roughly scaled to match price. You can see that if we assume bitcoins popularity is the main factor driving price, that the current price is justified, and in fact, (I have to say it) lower prices might be seen.
I know that correlation is not causation, but clearly there is a correlation here. It seems intuitive to me, since bitcoin is a lot like a commodity, that the number one factor driving prices is demand. Demand seems like it can be roughly estimated by getting an indication of interest, which is what google trends gives us. I think that assuming at least some causation is prudent.
Image Below:
The blue line is the google trend line for bitcoin, roughly scaled to match price. You can see that if we assume bitcoins popularity is the main factor driving price, that the current price is justified, and in fact, (I have to say it) lower prices might be seen.
I know that correlation is not causation, but clearly there is a correlation here. It seems intuitive to me, since bitcoin is a lot like a commodity, that the number one factor driving prices is demand. Demand seems like it can be roughly estimated by getting an indication of interest, which is what google trends gives us. I think that assuming at least some causation is prudent.
Jump to: