Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!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: 14 Oct 2024 16:52:06 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <ln50hmF4u5nU1@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>
 <ln2j3eFo72qU6@mid.individual.net> <vej5r5$178i4$1@dont-email.me>
X-Trace: individual.net rp7lHDuLlA6W4nyw8aqOMA2Gg891+ixFYp6A1lxAlW/3O5ijvJ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AXoO1idH9Z1dlkkEPv5oDdzs0QI= sha256:/tDaIZnnHoyO51ayP3VX778Jz/CaG/1W8g0u7gUcUw0=
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: _.g>n!a$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: 5205

On 2024-10-14, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I have literally stated the opposite. 

Then you're talking out o both sides of your mouth. 

>>> Why so desperate to find flaws
>> 
>> Why so desperate to push low-quality information?
>
> Again, I don't care about the actual result. It's the low-quality attempts
> to rebut the OP is what I care about. 

Sure. 

> Despite being on this for days none of you has got anything better than
> "dis numba small" vs "dis numba big" as an argument against the OP. 

Now you're just outright lying. Various other aspects of this poll have
been discussed including the fact that the methodology isn't stated, nor
how participants were selected, and the fact that the polling company
actually pays participants. Why lie? It has to be due to bias on your
part.

-- 
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