3 ms·

To save someone a click, so there is a study indicating 40% of couples “met online” (so via Twitter, IG, HN, Reddit, gaming, WhatsApp groups, etc., not necess

To save someone a click, so there is a study indicating 40% of couples “met online” (so via Twitter, IG, HN, Reddit, gaming, WhatsApp groups, etc., not necessarily dating apps); and then a study specifically about online dating apps where most participants were recruited online (in addition to the usual selection bias) so I didn’t bother checking results. Both are US-centric.

caminante 5y ago
>To save someone a click, And yet you admit >I didn’t bother checking results. Both are US-centric. ... You need to let the Stanford Professor and Pew Research know they're unqualified to perform research. :S
- goblin89 5y ago
  To reiterate, the first paper does not specifically pertain to dating apps, and the methodology of the second article is flawed (you want to know whether people meet online, so you ask people of whom >50% you found online, great technique)—so it might save someone who cares about that kind of stuff a click (a few clicks actually, since the methodology is buried in a separate article). If you don’t fall into that category, feel free to move along. And I don’t know the author of the second article personally, but if I did of course I would point out an issue with their data.
  - caminante 5y ago
    You're being difficult on purpose. > methodology is buried in a separate article It's an EXPLICIT footnote! See "Note; Here [is the report's] metholodgy." > Methodology of the second article is flawed (you want to know whether people meet online, so you ask people online, great technique) The methodology goes into statistical techniques to control for biases (e.g. language, gender identity, sampling method, etc.) See Methodology > Weighting about what they did with their ~5k responses.
    - goblin89 5y ago
      1st click to go to the article, ctrl+f to find methodology, 2nd click to go to methodology. See 6000+ people recruited via web. The rest seem to amount to fewer than that. Am I the one being difficult?

caminante 5y ago

>To save someone a click, And yet you admit >I didn’t bother checking results. Both are US-centric. ... You need to let the Stanford Professor and Pew Research know they're unqualified to perform research. :S

goblin89 5y ago
To reiterate, the first paper does not specifically pertain to dating apps, and the methodology of the second article is flawed (you want to know whether people meet online, so you ask people of whom >50% you found online, great technique)—so it might save someone who cares about that kind of stuff a click (a few clicks actually, since the methodology is buried in a separate article). If you don’t fall into that category, feel free to move along. And I don’t know the author of the second article personally, but if I did of course I would point out an issue with their data.
- caminante 5y ago
  You're being difficult on purpose. > methodology is buried in a separate article It's an EXPLICIT footnote! See "Note; Here [is the report's] metholodgy." > Methodology of the second article is flawed (you want to know whether people meet online, so you ask people online, great technique) The methodology goes into statistical techniques to control for biases (e.g. language, gender identity, sampling method, etc.) See Methodology > Weighting about what they did with their ~5k responses.
  - goblin89 5y ago
    1st click to go to the article, ctrl+f to find methodology, 2nd click to go to methodology. See 6000+ people recruited via web. The rest seem to amount to fewer than that. Am I the one being difficult?