Re: green bubble syndrome

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