The numbers just don't make sense. If 219 votes have been cast, it doesn't seem reasonable that most categories have 30's-50's responses. Also, the percentages are off. For example if 47 out of 50 respondents are male, the % male should be 94%, not 47 out of 219. I realize some people will not answer all questions (for what reason I don't know) but all the numbers seem really low for 219 respondents.
February Poll
- Thread starter revereman
- Start date
Here are the results as I write.
From these you can tell that roughly 25+20+15=60 people answered the poll (I get this assuming everyone who answered it clicked their age -- which may not be the case).
Of these 60, 52 cared to comment about their gender.
49 wished to disclose their bankroll.
However only 35 wanted to comment on being Dem. or Rep.
Finally, we can assume that everyone who answered lied about item 10, so that 29 people were honest.
The "total respondents" simply adds all the checked boxes together and does not correspond to the acutal number of completed poll entries.
The percentages listed are based on the total respondents. The poll doesn't know that items 1,2,3 should be grouped together and fractions taken from that. How would it? Nor does it know that items 4,5 are one group. It just takes the total times that box was checked and divides by the total number of checked boxes to get a percent.
If you want, I can re-run this poll, where each sub part becomes a monthly poll, and we can go on for a year or so, or you can accept it as is.
Weren't you the one who commented about the boundaries not being clear a month ago? I think you may just be poll-challenged
Code:
1. Age 18-30 25 11%
2. Age 31-45 20 9%
3. Age 46+ 15 7%
4. Male 49 22%
5. Female 3 1%
6. Bankroll < 20K 38 17%
7. Bankroll > 20K 11 5%
8. Democrat 19 8%
9. Republican 16 7%
10. Good looking 31 14%Of these 60, 52 cared to comment about their gender.
49 wished to disclose their bankroll.
However only 35 wanted to comment on being Dem. or Rep.
Finally, we can assume that everyone who answered lied about item 10, so that 29 people were honest.
The "total respondents" simply adds all the checked boxes together and does not correspond to the acutal number of completed poll entries.
The percentages listed are based on the total respondents. The poll doesn't know that items 1,2,3 should be grouped together and fractions taken from that. How would it? Nor does it know that items 4,5 are one group. It just takes the total times that box was checked and divides by the total number of checked boxes to get a percent.
If you want, I can re-run this poll, where each sub part becomes a monthly poll, and we can go on for a year or so, or you can accept it as is.
Weren't you the one who commented about the boundaries not being clear a month ago? I think you may just be poll-challenged
Au Contraire
Your explanation is obvious and I easily understand it. However, your results are totally erroneous. As you are an expert in computer science and math, those results, it seems to me you should have been able to program your computer to get meaningful results. Also as a math expert, you should have realizzed that the need for mutually exclusive subsets in the previous poll (yes, that was me). This sounds anatagonistic BUT I PROMISE IT IS NOT. I MEAN NO HARM AT ALL. However, I am stickler for detail (I believe the word anal--but not its relatives--well, sort of, sometimes) and accuracy. You can delete this thread if you want but I think my request does make sense.
Your explanation is obvious and I easily understand it. However, your results are totally erroneous. As you are an expert in computer science and math, those results, it seems to me you should have been able to program your computer to get meaningful results. Also as a math expert, you should have realizzed that the need for mutually exclusive subsets in the previous poll (yes, that was me). This sounds anatagonistic BUT I PROMISE IT IS NOT. I MEAN NO HARM AT ALL. However, I am stickler for detail (I believe the word anal--but not its relatives--well, sort of, sometimes) and accuracy. You can delete this thread if you want but I think my request does make sense.
Re: Au Contraire
>Your explanation is obvious and I easily understand it. However, your results are totally erroneous. As you are an expert in computer science and math, those results, it seems to me you should have been able to program your computer to get meaningful results.
I didn't write this software, I just use someone elses automatic polling tools freely available to any web host: www.bravenet.com
--Mayor
>Your explanation is obvious and I easily understand it. However, your results are totally erroneous. As you are an expert in computer science and math, those results, it seems to me you should have been able to program your computer to get meaningful results.
I didn't write this software, I just use someone elses automatic polling tools freely available to any web host: www.bravenet.com
--Mayor
Rob McGarvey
Well-Known Member
The Numbers
don't lie. They also do not tell the truth. I love how my bosses converge on us and tell us what all our numbers mean. The interpretation of the numbers is what makes or breaks the concept of using them properly. I will never forget the day I told one boss I can make all the numbers disappear. The look was..........priceless. In the end it cost him two salaries instead of one, and cost the company many man hours of training by people who didn't know what they were doing to begin with. Three salaries if you count the one he WAS getting.
don't lie. They also do not tell the truth. I love how my bosses converge on us and tell us what all our numbers mean. The interpretation of the numbers is what makes or breaks the concept of using them properly. I will never forget the day I told one boss I can make all the numbers disappear. The look was..........priceless. In the end it cost him two salaries instead of one, and cost the company many man hours of training by people who didn't know what they were doing to begin with. Three salaries if you count the one he WAS getting.