4 ms·

How so? They're looking for a change over time, so it would only really be an issue if we had some reason to think that people were changing how they responded

by elil17 4y ago

How so? They're looking for a change over time, so it would only really be an issue if we had some reason to think that people were changing how they responded to it in one year vs. the next.

causi 4y ago
so it would only really be an issue if we had some reason to think that people were changing how they responded to it in one year vs. the next. Such as, gee I dunno, a change in the nature of peoples' light exposure, like spending more time inside and more time staring at a screen every year? No way that could possibly throw off peoples' subjective feeling of how bright the sky is, right? I'm sure there definitely hasn't been any other types of changes to human vision over time, like an increase in myopia over time. There also definitely hasn't been an increase in photophobia over time due to, among other factors, changing demographics resulting in older people making up a larger percentage of respondents, no siree.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > No way that could possibly throw off peoples' subjective feeling of how bright the sky is, right? They're not being asked to evaluate the glow itself, but how many stars they can see in a particular region of the sky. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/light-pollution-rapidly-reducing-stars-visible-naked-eye-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/light-po... "Participants were asked to use a website to view a selection of star charts for their location – each showing an incrementally greater number of the stars that exist in that patch of sky – and pick the chart that best matched what they could see. The researchers then created a model that related the number of visible stars to the brightness of the night sky."
- elil17 4y ago
  Wouldn't all of those changes also equally effect how the people see the reference photos? I suppose myopia might if it was not corrected, but the vast majority is corrected.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Maybe you're having a bad day, but expressing yourself in such sarcastic terms isn't going to win you any friends. These things are hard to control for, but perhaps you can suggest a better method, bearing in mind that respondents to this survey are self-selected and presumably care about managing their own light sensitivity to some degree.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    Which in itself is another flaw in ...whatever we even want to call this. It's not a proper study. Yes, many here vote and (dis)trust statements based on tone of voice but despite the user losing their cool - for whatever reason - their criticism is still valid. It's reasonable to assume at the least moderate if not extreme bias in this self-selected group of people who're concerned with a lack of dark skies. Yet they didn't address nor attempt to control for it.

by elil17 4y ago

How so? They're looking for a change over time, so it would only really be an issue if we had some reason to think that people were changing how they responded to it in one year vs. the next.

causi 4y ago

so it would only really be an issue if we had some reason to think that people were changing how they responded to it in one year vs. the next. Such as, gee I dunno, a change in the nature of peoples' light exposure, like spending more time inside and more time staring at a screen every year? No way that could possibly throw off peoples' subjective feeling of how bright the sky is, right? I'm sure there definitely hasn't been any other types of changes to human vision over time, like an increase in myopia over time. There also definitely hasn't been an increase in photophobia over time due to, among other factors, changing demographics resulting in older people making up a larger percentage of respondents, no siree.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> No way that could possibly throw off peoples' subjective feeling of how bright the sky is, right? They're not being asked to evaluate the glow itself, but how many stars they can see in a particular region of the sky. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/light-pollution-rapidly-reducing-stars-visible-naked-eye-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/light-po... "Participants were asked to use a website to view a selection of star charts for their location – each showing an incrementally greater number of the stars that exist in that patch of sky – and pick the chart that best matched what they could see. The researchers then created a model that related the number of visible stars to the brightness of the night sky."
elil17 4y ago
Wouldn't all of those changes also equally effect how the people see the reference photos? I suppose myopia might if it was not corrected, but the vast majority is corrected.
anigbrowl 4y ago
Maybe you're having a bad day, but expressing yourself in such sarcastic terms isn't going to win you any friends. These things are hard to control for, but perhaps you can suggest a better method, bearing in mind that respondents to this survey are self-selected and presumably care about managing their own light sensitivity to some degree.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Which in itself is another flaw in ...whatever we even want to call this. It's not a proper study. Yes, many here vote and (dis)trust statements based on tone of voice but despite the user losing their cool - for whatever reason - their criticism is still valid. It's reasonable to assume at the least moderate if not extreme bias in this self-selected group of people who're concerned with a lack of dark skies. Yet they didn't address nor attempt to control for it.