scottie said:
Sorry, do you mind if I explain a thing called 'the Scientific method' to you.
We have 3 seperate experiments, which all show that that the japanese industry is growing. They all agree with an assumption of about 10% uncertainty. These experiments are called 'VGChartz numbers, Famitsu numbers and Media Create Numbers.
We have a 4th experiment, which tries to present the exact opposite of what these three are saying. however, it is a much less convincing experiment, as it involves much smaller sample sizes, and it involves asking people if they are gamers, rather than infering this from the number of games they buy.
Clearly, 3 good experiments say one thing, and 1 bad experiment says the opposite.
it is our job as rational minded people to try to explain what the people who ran this survey did wrong.
I suggest as one thing, they took it over too short a time scale for it to be scientifically valid
Secondly, 1000 people is not enough, 10 000 would be a much more sensible number, but even then the uncertainties would be huge.
Anyone else got any ideas as to how the survey could have been improved? |
Not one of those "experiments" is taking part in the scientific method. They could engage in the scientific method if they chose to, but it's alot more comprehensive than that, and your analysis would certainly not be sufficient. This poll has little to do with the scientific method, it's a simple poll with all the limitations polls usually have.
The alpha level of this poll would actually be better than the gallup polls and all the other polls in the US presidential election. In fact they could have chosen a smaller sample and still had a reasonable alpha level.
A game I'm developing with some friends:
www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm
It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.







