A lot more than 177 people would be needed to make a survey more closer to accurate.
no joke.
actually that they even posted this information is the joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Groan. Here we go again.
First, it is more than 177.
you're right. it was what 250
Quote:
Second, you should learn a little bit about sampling theory,
Since you know so much about sampling you know that choosing respondents in one isolated area as a reflection of a group spread out over the whole country is not an accurate sampling even if you can argue 'margin of error'.
What it is is still a joke. As are every one of these 'authoritative' surveys making statements about X users of whatever when really all they sampled was a tiny group picked from one street corner, one magazine list etc.
What it is is still a joke. As are every one of these 'authoritative' surveys making statements about X users of whatever when really all they sampled was a tiny group picked from one street corner, one magazine list etc.
Comments
A lot more than 177 people would be needed to make a survey more closer to accurate.
no joke.
actually that they even posted this information is the joke.
Groan. Here we go again.
First, it is more than 177.
you're right. it was what 250
Second, you should learn a little bit about sampling theory,
Since you know so much about sampling you know that choosing respondents in one isolated area as a reflection of a group spread out over the whole country is not an accurate sampling even if you can argue 'margin of error'.
What it is is still a joke. As are every one of these 'authoritative' surveys making statements about X users of whatever when really all they sampled was a tiny group picked from one street corner, one magazine list etc.
What it is is still a joke. As are every one of these 'authoritative' surveys making statements about X users of whatever when really all they sampled was a tiny group picked from one street corner, one magazine list etc.
Reminds me of Fox News.