Discussion of the paper:

confirmatory of the literature, in what ways useful? Some elements surprising?

• GG: away from engineer-centric approach, every day perspective original;
• this paper hides its method, no datasets or detail; a publishing issue for a mainstream history journal, but typically a requirement, whereas a DH journal would require datasets, code, methods etc.; This is an issue we will reckon with if wanting to publish in history venues.
• GG: in what ways is NYC a useful case study? How different e.g., to London?
• AB: why is this not a DH article?
• DW: it's in the presentation; the key methods are clearly digital and offer combinatorial / multifactorial analysis using datasets of different size and scope.
• DW: useful example for us in bringing small and big(gish) data, extrapolating from representative textual / qualitative data where appropriate.
• AMS&JW: how best to balance discussion of research and methods? DH-centric discussion of methodology tends to be dull.
• Some discussion of how to combine the two aspects, e.g., in the work of an RSE: follow-on: how to motivate/interest RSEs?