tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3363708686706070383.post3414876268955426697..comments2020-05-20T15:28:18.999+01:00Comments on Tony's Blog: Media oversight from the unexpected angle.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00446535470734199043noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3363708686706070383.post-57654423285585679772009-09-07T14:08:09.988+01:002009-09-07T14:08:09.988+01:00Yes, that's part of the highly questionable fu...Yes, that's part of the highly questionable fudging. I'm just addressing the bit about "small sample size."David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3363708686706070383.post-29809863719296075332009-09-07T13:53:48.053+01:002009-09-07T13:53:48.053+01:00David, isn't the number they used for the onli...David, isn't the number they used for the online population here being larger than other reported figures important because they are reporting a number not a percentage?Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00446535470734199043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3363708686706070383.post-4375554920930637632009-09-07T13:16:33.868+01:002009-09-07T13:16:33.868+01:00The sample size (about 1000) is not an issue - rem...The sample size (about 1000) is not an issue - remember that the quality of the result (the resolution) depends *entirely* on the sample size, *not* on the size of the population. Doesn't matter if the population is ten thousand, 100,000, a million or fifty million - if the sample size is 1000, you'll get a +/- 10% figure, which is plenty good enough to go on with.<br /><br />(This is a surprising mathematical result, which is why first-year statistics students get it beaten into their heads: RESOLUTION relates only to SAMPLE SIZE, it does NOT relate to POPULATION SIZE.)<br /><br />The problematic aspect is the massaging they then did to the figure.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.com