4 ms·

The headline and pitch are misleading (clickbait?). This is an article about people who tweet about xkcd. Which is a combination of people who read xkcd and peo

The headline and pitch are misleading (clickbait?). This is an article about people who tweet about xkcd. Which is a combination of people who read xkcd and people who think "Oh, look at this cool comic my friend showed me. I should tweet about it!" It isn't accurate to extrapolate data from such a specific group to the whole. [Also, privacy badger blocks squarespace on this site, which breaks the styling ] Edit: Relevant SMBC comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3374#comic http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3374#comic

vlunkr 12y ago
I was going to make the same comment. Not everyone who reads xkcd tweets about it, or even uses twitter.
- sz4kerto 12y ago
  And? You could say that the people who tweet about xkcd are not a representative sample of the people who read xkcd. However, I don't see this as something absolutely intuitive -- my intuition is that it's a slightly distorted sample, but should not be _that_ off. I don't see why the people who tweet should have different characteristics to the people who read. The thread is full of comments complaining about why the OP took this particular set -- I don't have too much problem with it. It's a sample, and quite a large one.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > You could say that the people who tweet about xkcd are not a representative sample of the people who read xkcd. However, I don't see this as something absolutely intuitive That a sample drawn from a group distinct within the target universe by a common factor (as "people who tweet XKCD comics" is within the universe of "people who read XKCD comics") is otherwise representative of the target group is a point which must be justified when using analysis of the sample group to draw conclusions about the target group, not something to be assumed unless there is evidence to reject it. Because the distinction is, in and of itself, a manner in which the sample group is not representative of the target group.
dang 12y ago
Thank you. Title changed.
- Infinitesimus 12y ago
  Thanks for changing it (Sorry if I came across as too harsh. )

vlunkr 12y ago

I was going to make the same comment. Not everyone who reads xkcd tweets about it, or even uses twitter.

sz4kerto 12y ago
And? You could say that the people who tweet about xkcd are not a representative sample of the people who read xkcd. However, I don't see this as something absolutely intuitive -- my intuition is that it's a slightly distorted sample, but should not be _that_ off. I don't see why the people who tweet should have different characteristics to the people who read. The thread is full of comments complaining about why the OP took this particular set -- I don't have too much problem with it. It's a sample, and quite a large one.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > You could say that the people who tweet about xkcd are not a representative sample of the people who read xkcd. However, I don't see this as something absolutely intuitive That a sample drawn from a group distinct within the target universe by a common factor (as "people who tweet XKCD comics" is within the universe of "people who read XKCD comics") is otherwise representative of the target group is a point which must be justified when using analysis of the sample group to draw conclusions about the target group, not something to be assumed unless there is evidence to reject it. Because the distinction is, in and of itself, a manner in which the sample group is not representative of the target group.

dang 12y ago

Thank you. Title changed.

Infinitesimus 12y ago
Thanks for changing it (Sorry if I came across as too harsh. )