On 05/16/2012 11:14 AM, ext André Somers wrote: > Op 16-5-2012 1:31, André Pönitz schreef: >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:13:19AM -0700, BRM wrote: >>>> From: Donald Carr<sirsp...@gmail.com> >>>> [...] This is out of a sample set of 110 people, which is >>>> infinitesimally small in comparison to the Qt user base. It would >>>> be a stretch to call this a statistically significant poll, [...] >>> [...] But the sample sizes are no better than yours - 114/139/19 >>> respectively for each poll. Again, statically insignificant. >> I wonder how the two of you came to the conclusion of statistical >> insignificance, and how you explain the apparent discrepancy of this >> result with, say, the section titled "Estimating proportions and means" >> on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination. [1] >> >> I trust the audience would be delighted if you gave some insight >> into the calculation. >> >> Andre' >> >> [1] That link is admittedly a random pick, but Wikipedia seems to >> be an acceptable replacement for lecture notes nowadays. >> > If we're throwing wikipedia links back and forth anyway, also consult > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29#Errors_in_sample_surveys > > please. I agree with you that perhaps the sample _size_ is not an issue, > but the sample suffers from *many* of the errors mentioned on the URL > above, including selection bias, undercoverage and measurement error. > Doing good surveys is just plain hard to do, and the polls discussed so > far certainly don't qualify as "good" or even "acceptable". There are > people getting a PhD on this kind of thing... > > However, I think the whole point is moot. I don't think the people who > get to decide - that is, those doing or funding the actual work - care > much about any such statistics, no matter if they are sound or not. And > more generally: facts don't seem to matter much in this discussion > either for some participants, or at least not those facts that tell a > different story than they want to hear. > > André
It's worth noting that the Qt project is designed to be a meritocracy, not a democracy. -- Samuel _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
