[didibus]

It sounds a little like denial. I mean, Bloomberg does a great job, its pretty simple: "The 2018 ranking process began with more than 200 economies. Each was scored on a 0-100 scale based on seven equally weighted categories. Nations that didn’t report data for at least six categories were eliminated".

So its an equally weighted average of 7 categories. The data was reported by the nations themselves.

Now the key takeaway is that the US dropped out of the top 10. Comparatively, you can tell something is changing in the US causing a drop.

Metrics are just indicator, and can sometimes misrepresent the reality, but more often, there's truth in the metrics also. Its hard to say what the impact of this innovation score is, is it economic, or is it social, but clearly the score change is due to real realities changing.

[totalZero]

> Comparatively, you can tell something is changing in the US causing a drop.

The reported numbers from other countries, or the reported numbers from the US, could also be flawed. Just because numbers have changed relative to one another, doesn't mean that countries have done so as well. You are assuming a particular causal relationship when there are several plausible alternative theories available.

> more often, there's truth in the metrics

Metric isn't the right word. It would make sense for tangible qualities like area, population, and even GNP. But the measured quality here is "innovation," with an amalgam of other characteristics taken as the one true proxy thereof. It's a ranking, but it's not actually measuring innovation.

> clearly the score change is due to real realities changing.

It could also be a change in reported numbers. Or even random noise that tends to revert. These numbers may not even be relevant to the true seeds of innovation.

[toomanybeersies]

You've hit the nail on the head I think.

It's the change in relative rankings that is the useful data from these rankings, rather than the absolute ranking.

[oh_sigh]

Presumably OP is calling into question any such ranking, not just the recent ranking where the US dropped out.

> Comparatively, you can tell something is changing in the US causing a drop.

Yes, one of the factors they used to come up with this rating. Now - the question is, are those factors actually correlated with innovation?

[muninn_]

Sorry but not buying it. The selection of even 7 categories, let alone suggesting that such categories should be equally weighted is unreliable at best. The nations self-reporting the data is completely irrelevant and, again, at best unreliable.

Now, maybe the US isn't as innovative as Sweden is. Ok. What exactly does that mean? Why do I care if the percentage of graduate educated people is higher? How does that actually affect innovation? Are those people releasing new, globally-changing products and services? What are some examples?

What does it mean if Samsung has more US patents than any other company besides IBM? Is IBM more innovative than Google?

It's fun and popular to bash the U.S. (has been for some time) but I really don't see much meaning behind these rankings. It's not an in-depth study. Amazon has more criteria for picking a HQ. Do you really think Bloomberg can look at these '7 criteria' and come up with a meaningful estimation? No.

[watwut]

> Now, maybe the US isn't as innovative as Sweden is. Ok. What exactly does that mean?

It means exactly the same thing it meant when US was among top. There were people who were interested in it and sometimes happy about it. Those very same people are still interested, but this time wonder whether it means something is changing for worst.

[muninn_]

So it was meaningless still. There’s nothing to be interest about here unless unfounded clickbait is a hobby.