off-topic was Re: [] NCSG Checkin

[Avri Doria]

i had no hypothesis.  was just surprised that the numbers were so close.

so i guess i should not feel that it was remarkable.
but just accept that i am an idiot who is easily amused.

either that or went bonkers long time ago.

thanks for the input.

a.

On 21 Jul 2011, at 17:26, Dan Krimm wrote:

> On Thu, July 21, 2011 12:44 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>             (
>>              personal aside, I find it remarkable that the
>>              two ratios came out so close given proportional
>>              voting based on organizational size or individual status -
> got to be amused by the little things in this job
>>              or you will go completely bonkers!
>>              )
>
>
> This sort of thing is my occupation these days (policy research,
> statistical analysis), so permit me to engage this tangent.
>
> What this indicates is that the probability of response (or non-response)
> is not correlated with (i.e., appears to be independent of) the vote-count
> per respondent.  (I checked it per respondent type, and it is comparably
> close across types:  large = 7/21 = 33.333%, small = 22/64 = 34.375%,
> individual = 55/166 = 33.133%)
>
> Why this should be remarkable or not is an open question.  :-)
>
> Why would you hypothesize that they would be different?  Did you think
> institutional members would be systematically different (on average) from
> individual members, in this regard?  Do you have a theory of response that
> predicts this?
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>