ginandbacon: That message from Newport sounded frankly unhinged.
dameron: You know Gallup could do three or four types of polls, produce a wider range or data and aggregate their own internal numbers and release them as a top line poll. They'd get better results and not look like morons after the fact.Although honestly, I think they were just carrying water for the Romney camp. There were plenty of criticisms of Gallup going back years that said their likely voter model was deeply flawed wrt measuring youth and minority voters but did they address those issues? No. They took a gamble that they were right and that the youth vote etc. would stay home but they were wrong, now they're biatching about Nate Silver because he happened to be the waiter who delivered the shiat sandwich they, themselves, ordered.
Quasar: "WELL FINE MAYBE WE WON'T DO POLLS ANYMORE!"
impaler: They would have still sucked whether Silver pointed it out or not.
Triumph: This is the exact same argument we heard 10 years ago that aggregators like Fark and Drudge would kill real journalism......uh oh.
eraser8: Does anyone know if Gallup had a change of leadership, recently? A change in leadership that might have been more...receptive to a Romney win?/not arguing conspiracy//just asking a question///seriously and honestly, just asking a question
Heraclitus: wait wait let me post this again :'Is that some kind of Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better?'Boy that just never gets old....
Nadie_AZ: Business Week had an article on this. They basically said this was a win for Gallop as it put them in the headlines for a few weeks.
skipjack: Triumph: This is the exact same argument we heard 10 years ago that aggregators like Fark and Drudge would kill real journalism......uh oh.There is a difference in that it does take money and skill to conduct a poll. I suppose 2 dudes in a room could conceivably call the proper sample size in a couple of days and generate the data needed to give a poll. Of course, they'd have to have a way to sell said data to make their 20 hour days worth while.But in your world that's apparently the same as writing code, having users generate a majority of your content and have a ready made platform to sell ad's./you should go to your local community college and audit statistics and marketing (specifically marketing analysis)//because polling is easy///that's why everyone does it
unyon: The gist of the argument is this- accurate aggregators will limit the number of people doing polling, thus eroding the accuracy of aggregators.Based on where Gallup was polling, I think Nate was chucking them as an outlier anyways. Nobody will miss you, Gallup.
StopLurkListen: ...Gallup sounds Republican.
We have a reverse law of the commons with polls. It's not easy nor cheap to conduct traditional random sample polls. It's much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others' polls. Organizations that traditionally go to the expense and effort to conduct individual polls could, in theory, decide to put their efforts into aggregation and statistical analyses of other people's polls in the next election cycle and cut out their own polling. If many organizations make this seemingly rational decision, we could quickly be in a situation in which there are fewer and fewer polls left to aggregate and put into statistical models. Many individual rational decisions could result in a loss for the collective interest of those interested in public opinion.
Britney Spear's Speculum: Whether or not Nate Silver even exists doesn't change the fact that they failed to predict the winner.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come check out what's behind the curtain.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 13 2017 05:11:32
Runtime: 0.330 sec (329 ms)