You're basically throwing darts at logarithmic graph paper! The area covered by squares which "start with 1" is larger than the area covered by square which "start with 9".
Best explanation for Benford's Law I've ever seen. I've always had a rough understanding of the "why" of it, but this really drives the point home.
It's the most extreme expression of the concept. Every number in binary starts with 1. The only other possible leading digit would be a meaningless leading zero, so every number starts with 1. Benford's Law holds in the most extreme manner possible in binary notation, that numbers starting with 1 dominate the population over all others.
The much bigger issue is people trying many different statistical tests until they find the one that "works", removing outliers to make the data look better or just neglecting to mention things like p-values or confidence intervals in the hope that nobody would notice.
Much harder to spot, but potentially as misleading as just making numbers up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
> Benford's Law, also called the First-Digit Law, refers to the frequency distribution of digits in many (but not all) real-life sources of data. In this distribution, the number 1 occurs as the leading digit about 30% of the time, while larger numbers occur in that position less frequently: 9 as the first digit less than 5% of the time. Benford's Law also concerns the expected distribution for digits beyond the first, which approach a uniform distribution.
As one might imagine:
> A test of regression coefficients in published papers showed agreement with Benford's law. As a comparison group subjects were asked to fabricate statistical estimates. The fabricated results failed to obey Benford's law.
So keep that in mind, data fabricators!