Re: BBC Watchdog Broadband Survey - Results

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Mark Ingle <markinglenospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not everybody who will be reading it is statistically savvy enough to
realise how stupidly wrong that is.

I suspect the idiots who posted it did not realise how stupid it was.

I had the following response to an e-mail which seems to confirm how
poorly these people understand statistics:

Thanks for your email. I'm sorry you were disappointed by our
broadband survey. I didn't think it was fair or representative of
our viewer's opinions to show the results proportionally as that
wasn't how we'd obtained our sample. The people who voted were of
course simply the people who could be bothered to take part. So we
were always starting off with a survey that is not scientific or
statistically relevant. I thought it better to be upfront about that
and simply present the response by volume. We did consider excluding
number below a certain level but I thought that was also unfair, as
it would have meant that small companies who performed well would
not have had that demonstrated.
In the event we did refer to how well those smaller companies did,
and the full results are of course on our website. We made clear our
methodology, and that the results were simply a snapshot of viewers
opinions rather than a scientific analysis.
But if we do such an exercise again, I'll bear your comments in mind.

Rob Unsworth
Editor, "Watchdog"

"What a load of cobblers" is all I can say about the BBC response.

In particular, the full results are *not* on their website. What about the
breakdown between satisfied and very satisfied etc.? What about the
responses concerning reliability, customer services etc.?

--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clemente Jrs ridiculous request
    ... When are you going to learn that you're not being mocked in this newsgroup ... as stupid for not using statistics, but rather because you really are ... understand statistics more complex than batting average is merely a symptom ... I don't mock him for being completely intellectually ...
    (rec.sport.baseball)
  • Re: OT: A plea to Paul
    ... from Dave which you cited here:Yeah, that was pretty stupid ... The entire paragraph was quoted. ... Here, look at YOUR response: ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Even Laura Bush Identifies with feminism! Fancy that
    ... and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to... ... Darling Regan wrote: ... Stupid hestitating quavering female. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Recurring themes
    ... And there you go, typical Ken response. ... Dave Turner, Mar 20. ... No point having a discussion if you are going to lie ... Are you taking the piss or just totally stupid. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: How many .pst files should Outlook have?
    ... Statistics: Starting processing of request - Service.cpp ... Finished processing request - Service.cpp ... XML: <Status ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc.activesync)