4 ms·
Given how widespread word of this thing got, how could researchers possibly distinguish responses to their email that were from people who were not aware it was
by jffry 5y ago
Given how widespread word of this thing got, how could researchers possibly distinguish responses to their email that were from people who were not aware it was research, versus responses from people who had become aware what was happening?
The same goes for people who didn't respond. Did they not respond because they heard about this being research, or did they not respond for other reasons?
This data is the opposite of flawless, it is poisoned, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the responses they got would be junk.
- seoulmetro 5y ago>Given how widespread word of this thing got, how could researchers possibly distinguish responses to their email that were from people who were not aware it was research, versus responses from people who had become aware what was happening? By limiting results by time to anything received before everyone found out? It's pretty easy to set a time period for that. It has the benefit that people who find out will not want to participate or will complain. >This data is the opposite of flawless, it is poisoned, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the responses they got would be junk. Nope. Even just limiting it to 48hours would provide great data.