Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Chris 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: References: 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 wrote: > On 2024-10-14 09:20, Chris wrote: >> Jolly Roger wrote: >>> 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. >> >> 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.