I was underwhelmed as well. In addition to the items you point out, at the end the article says:
"...it still might be worth your time and energy to use airfare prediction software. Why? Because following the algorithm isn’t going to cost you more money..."
which is simply wrong, since the article explicitly gives examples of following the algorithm costing the author more money.
I think the author was basing that statement on his previous assertion that:
If weighted equally, the prices paid, following Kayak’s algorithm, were 2 percent higher than the initial March 29 prices. Wearing my statistical hat, I’d call that a tie between the two strategies.
The author also claims that:
in user surveys that in addition to appealing to quantitative types, another group of regular users said Farecast gave them “peace of mind.”
So if the price difference is 2% (basically a wash either way), then waiting would be a superior strategy because it "might actually relieve some of the second-guessing that occurs when you’re left to your own devices," and that peace of mind may be worth more than 2% of the ticket cost.
...or at least, I think that's the author's point.
Comments
I was underwhelmed as well. In addition to the items you point out, at the end the article says:
"...it still might be worth your time and energy to use airfare prediction software. Why? Because following the algorithm isn’t going to cost you more money..."
which is simply wrong, since the article explicitly gives examples of following the algorithm costing the author more money.
I think the author was basing that statement on his previous assertion that:
The author also claims that:
So if the price difference is 2% (basically a wash either way), then waiting would be a superior strategy because it "might actually relieve some of the second-guessing that occurs when you’re left to your own devices," and that peace of mind may be worth more than 2% of the ticket cost.
...or at least, I think that's the author's point.