Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: green bubble syndrome
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:02:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <vejtd5$1b0le$1@dont-email.me>
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$1@dont-email.me>
 <j3ePO.142599$WtV9.61084@fx10.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:02:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="560e84dd1bcd35a633357690f1220ae9";
	logging-data="1409710"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183eyYk9qPBG6MrzQ/xbzxNKvBnMISltV4="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t1L6KZP+jxdtAyexR7wcBoTJi3M=
	sha1:HBG7kJSVezLLLVQ8FZzumOViOBc=
Bytes: 5350

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2024-10-14 09:20, Chris 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.
>> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> The OP is a proven troll enabler/supporter in its primary roll and low 
> level troll in its secondary roll.

I don't think he is. From where I'm sitting JR and JL are the trolls. 

Why do you respond to a "proven troll", if that's what you genuinely
believe?

>> 
>> 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.
> 
> So despite it turning into a hash, you're fanning the flames?

I'm not encouraging anyone. If people aren't willing to defend their
assertions without making it personal, then I'm not the issue the here.