3 ms·
That seems fair; but they have a whole methodology section. If you want to argue with it, surely the onus is on you to do it concretely? > Because of your met
by shadowmint 7y ago
That seems fair; but they have a whole methodology section.
If you want to argue with it, surely the onus is on you to do it concretely?
> Because of your methodology, we must assume a biased sample.
^ I find this quote problematic.
Why must we assume that? If you want to distribution comparisons and point out there survey results are skewed by X compared to some other survey Y... ok.
...but that’s not whats happening right? Its just a flat out arbitrary assumption.
I don’t like arbitrary assumptions when I’m doing maths.
Its easy to say something is wrong, but if you can’t quanitfy how its wrong, I’m struggling to see why I should accept the assumption being raised here.
The js survey was very similar; it was arbitrarily asserted it went to more react developers... but no one actually proved that. They just... assumed it.
- shkkmo 7y ago> Why must we assume that? Because you should distrust flawed methodologies by default. The incorrect assumption is that the sample produced by a known flawed methodology is representative. > Its just a flat out arbitrary assumption. It is not at all arbitrary. It is based on well known issues with this particular method of sampling.