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." >

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.