Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: green bubble syndrome
Date: 13 Oct 2024 18:50:22 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <ln2j3eFo72qU6@mid.individual.net>
References: <xn0oruv2k1siabt002@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <ve6sv0$2q45v$1@dont-email.me> <ve7s0q$31vac$1@dont-email.me>
 <ve7uos$7t6o$2@solani.org> <vebtjl$3pa58$1@dont-email.me>
 <lmtv4oF2u71U2@mid.individual.net> <vee0md$6nme$1@dont-email.me>
 <UzwOO.61464$Enpe.23712@fx38.iad> <veebvs$8lna$1@dont-email.me>
 <iKBOO.384861$WOde.118415@fx09.iad> <veesur$ba5e$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: individual.net JzUPZSFFW5mQz4ddNaBwmQxyJOqQaHsZb8Hq2dJs26CMnrbMlg
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tqQiZg59fEQ7fBmufT8WZF6RA78= sha256:V/z/D3O1rcGzvBctIA0BvV1xNa74hd1yWfNzJS+S9f8=
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM
 dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW<
 ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e
 up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Darwin)
Bytes: 4409

On 2024-10-12, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-10-12 13:34, Chris wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-12 10:22, Chris wrote:
>>>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> No. That's not how the burden of proof works. The person (or in this
>>>>>> case, the website) making the claim is responsible for proving their
>>>>>> methodology is sound. And absent of that proof, the rest of us are
>>>>>> completely within our right to disregard it as baseless. This really
>>>>>> shouldn't need to be explained to educated adults, but here we are.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You've completely misapplied burden of proof.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This isn't an unsubstantiated claim where burden of proof would apply.
>>>>> There is proof/evidence here: the result of the survey.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are welcome to disagree with it, but if you want to make an
>>>>> unsubstantiated claim that it is meaningless the onus is now on you.
>>>> 
>>>> The burden is with the survey "maker" to publish method, selection, etc.
>>>> for peer review.
>>> 
>>> This isn't a scientific study. It's a survey. The website used a
>>> professional outfit called pollfish.
>>> https://www.pollfish.com/
>>> 
>>> I don't know them, but on balance I trust them more than JR's random
>>> anecdotes or poor maths skills.
>> 
>> A little research into them indicates they are not so much 
>> "professional" pollsters, but a monetization and personal data gathering 
>> platform owned by online marketing co. Prodege.
>> 
>> Amongst complaints is they run "pay the pollee" programs where the 
>> person responding to the poll is paid for completing a set of questions. 
>>  However, there is a "quality gate" that measures how long you take per 
>> answer to throw out people who are "too fast".  Many people complain of 
>> getting to the end (pollfish get the data) and then the people are 
>> thrown out under an excuse ("too fast!").
>> 
>> Pollfish still get:
>> 
>> - data (survey)
>> - identifying data (the pollee) to monetize elsewhere.
>> - client money (who wants the survey done).
>> 
>> Of course clients looking for a desired outcome usually influence how 
>> the questions are formulated, what the questions are (and aren't).
>> 
>> IOW - not a polling organization so much as a money grab.
>> 
>> Paying people to respond to a poll already indicates a skewed poll pool.
>> 
>
> For someone wishing to end the discussion you've gone quite into some depth
> to try and find flaws. 

Whereas you have stated you blindly trust their results without question.

> Why so desperate to find flaws

Why so desperate to push low-quality information?

> Simply not responding would be easier. 

And now you're telling others to shut up because you dislike where the
discussion is going...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR