XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article <52e1e1fe$0$52764$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional   
   Traveler  wrote:   
   > On 1/23/2014 6:31 PM, Chrysi Cat wrote:   
   > > On 1/23/2014 5:21 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > >> In article <1xxsbf7bzxt8w.1244utm9kehz9.dlg@40tude.net>, Brian M. Scott   
   > >>  wrote:   
   > >>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:27:46 +1300, Your Name   
   > >>>  wrote in   
   > >>>  in   
   > >>> rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,rec.arts.sf.misc:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> [...]   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> The problem is "surveys" are never accurate because they   
   > >>>> simply ask far too few people [...]   
   > >>>   
   > >>> On the contrary, sample size is rarely a problem.  The   
   > >>> problem is getting a simple random sample.   
   > >>   
   > >> Few surveys are actually random. Idiot companies like Neilsen pick and   
   > >> choose who can and can't be surveyed in the pretense of obtaining a   
   > >> "statistically equivalent" ratio of people, which in itself means it's   
   > >> never going to be random nor accurate.   
   > >>   
   > >> Sample size is also a big problem. There's no point asking 50 people   
   > >> out of a population of 50 million ... the results are useless, and the   
   > >> way such results are reported is even worse. The survey is ONLY ever   
   > >> going to be accurate for those 50 people. Anything else supposedly   
   > >> "proven" is pure gueswork and manipulation, and often (especially in   
   > >> marketing) statistically manipulated to "prove" wahtever the people   
   > >> paying for it want it to "prove".   
   > >   
   > > If I didn't know better, I'd say "Shawn-like typing detected".   
   > > Statistics work. If you couldn't extrapolate from a proper sample (which   
   > > would probably be closer to 500 or 5000 for that 50 mil), then we'd   
   > > pretty much be up a creek for knowing what people do and think...   
   >   
   > I've spent a few years as the guy in the field collecting that data you   
   > are extrapolating from.  We're up the creek.   
      
   Yep, I've done and be in numerous surveys too, and they're all   
   completely worthless due to many varying reasons, mostly thanks to the   
   idiotic and misleading way the "results" are reported.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)