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 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: References: 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>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Darwin) Bytes: 4409 On 2024-10-12, Chris wrote: > Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2024-10-12 13:34, Chris wrote: >>> Alan Browne wrote: >>>> On 2024-10-12 10:22, Chris wrote: >>>>> Jolly Roger 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