By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 04 June 2014
Edit Thread
LudicrousSpeed said:
BMaker11 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Shit, MS might as well pack it up. Without those 732 sales from readers of "DealNews", the gen is all but lost already. brb going to sell my xbone for a PC, apparently this survey says its the best.

Funny, because apparently, on a population of 80M (Xbox 360 userbase), you only need a sample size of 385 to be within a 5% margin of error. The survey sample size in the OP is almost 2.5x larger than what's needed to be within a good MoE on the population of what the 360 is at.

http://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=1&cl=95&ci=5&ps=80000000&x=0&y=0

I always love it when people see statistics they don't like then sarcastically say "they only surveyed X amount of people" as if you need some exorbitant amount of people to have an accurate statistic. Do you know that Gallup, the company that tracks presidential elections, "only" uses a sample size of about 2,800, which accounts for the opinions of the the little under 200M registered voters (actual voter turnout was 126M in 2012) and is at a 2% margin of error? Guess their numbers are bogus because they didn't survey 100,000 people, right?

@bold and I always love when people go off on some tangent completely irrelevant to the post they are quoting. I don't give a crap about their sample size or the accuracy of their poll, my post was only mocking the relevance of it. Or lack thereof. I don't like or dislike these statistics. They are completely meaningless. And funny you'd champion Gallup, given their accuracy issues lately. Either way cool rant, bro.

Your comment was clearly sarcasm making fun of the people who said they "weren't interested" because the number was "only 732", jesting that "MS better pack up since they missed out on those 732 sales". Completely ignoring that if 732 people out of 927 say they are "not interested", that is statistically significant and something to take into consideration. 

It wasn't a tangent, it was a direct reply to your blatant mockery. Don't play dumb. If you don't care about the accuracy of the pole or the sample size, you wouldn't have made that comment, because in terms of statistics, 732 is a LARGE number and nothing to be scoffed at. The physical 732 may not mean much, but the statistical extrapolation behind that does mean something, and with a sample size as large as 927, that extrapolation means a lot. You say the numbers are "irrelevant" and "meaningless" because you probably think the total number surveyed "isn't that much" so the results don't mean anything, right? But you are wrong. 

And I said Gallup, in name, because it's the most recognizable. But if you clicked the link, you'd see that there are dozens of trackers there, Gallup amongst them, and guess what? They all used similar sample sizes, some larger some smaller. All of them are within 3-5% margin of error extrapolating to 200M registered voters. I could have just as easily said "Rasmussen" or "CNN Opinion Poll" or "Wall Street Journal" and my point would have still been the same. There was no "championing". I just used a familiar name.