While I agree, this survey is based on less than 1% of the population. The article does not clearly cite its sources. ‘Based on 1019 responses’ from who? Sydneysiders? People from the NT?
This uncited survey from a for profit company, with major shareholders being venture capitalists, asset managers, shitbags, etc. with a history of possible poll manipulation means nothing.
I agree with what you’re saying for the most part, but for a population the size of Australia with 1000 respondents, a 99% confidence level has a margin of error of 4% which is perfectly acceptable. Unless the survey targeted very specific demographics versus a random sample, it should be very accurate.
While I agree, this survey is based on less than 1% of the population.
The fact that the survey is uncited is a problem, but polling is a science, and you only need a relatively small amount, with proper weighting, to get reliable results.
OK, so something with no citations or methodology is gospel, got it…
I didn’t say that, now did I? I simply pointed out that criticizing a survey for being based on “less than 1% of the population” is fucking stupid because that’s just how polling works. Got it? Good. We’re done here.
The article does not clearly cite its sources. ‘Based on 1019 responses’ from who? Sydneysiders? People from the NT?
This uncited survey from a for profit company, with major shareholders being venture capitalists, asset managers, shitbags, etc. with a history of possible poll manipulation means nothing.
Was that edited in after the fact? Why are people dogpiling based on that first sentence and ignoring the rest?
40% of Australia has their head on.
While I agree, this survey is based on less than 1% of the population. The article does not clearly cite its sources. ‘Based on 1019 responses’ from who? Sydneysiders? People from the NT?
This uncited survey from a for profit company, with major shareholders being venture capitalists, asset managers, shitbags, etc. with a history of possible poll manipulation means nothing.
I expect better from the Guardian
I agree with what you’re saying for the most part, but for a population the size of Australia with 1000 respondents, a 99% confidence level has a margin of error of 4% which is perfectly acceptable. Unless the survey targeted very specific demographics versus a random sample, it should be very accurate.
That was my point though, we have no idea who was surveyed.
The fact that the survey is uncited is a problem, but polling is a science, and you only need a relatively small amount, with proper weighting, to get reliable results.
Yes, that’s how polls work.
OK, so something with no citations or methodology is gospel, got it…
I didn’t say that, now did I? I simply pointed out that criticizing a survey for being based on “less than 1% of the population” is fucking stupid because that’s just how polling works. Got it? Good. We’re done here.
Was that edited in after the fact? Why are people dogpiling based on that first sentence and ignoring the rest?