Oh, truly?! That indeed makes a whole difference.

]]>Google’s indexing is case-sensitive, and you get very different results if you try with a capital B: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Bayesian%2Cprior+distribution%2Cposterior+distribution%2Cp-value%2Ct-test&year_start=1920&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

]]>Thank you, David: while I can spot the difference in numbers, I am not so sure the comparison of the absolute numbers makes so much sense: when one uses “p-value” in a paper or in a book, it is likely to be used several times (a few thousand times in the extreme cast of The Cult!). I would think the use of “Bayesian” would remain more limited. Anyway, I do not want to start an endless debate: my aim was to try to spot the impact of the introduction of MCMC methods in 1990 on the use of the term “Bayesian” and it does not appear on those graphs.

]]>http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bayesian%2C+prior+distribution%2Cposterior+distribution%2Cp-value%2Ct-test&year_start=1920&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=

It seems that people have started publishing more about statistics, but the relative rate of growth of the different terms seems indicative that in publishing, bayesian methods are still WAY behind, in terms of times they are mentioned.

]]>http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=bayesian,%20frequentist,%20maximum%20likelihood

Google Trends index is a measure of search intensity on google, not of the use of the word in books and/or articles.

By the way, it is not clear if recent scientific publications are included in Google N Grams.

]]>