Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Darth Reagan
I'm only complaining about the display, not the results, of course. The results give the impression of trying to fool the public (and you probably are not trying to do that).

There are too many significant figures displayed relative to the input data. Displaying (in this case) four significant figures implies that the data is good to 1 part in 10000. Most of this data is good to about 1 part in 30. This is a common advertising ploy; the purpose is to give the data more "gravitas" by implying a high precision. There's a PDF file discussing some of the issues here .

I think that there is an error in your formula. You are dividing by the Aggrate Poll but I think you only meant to divide by the weights (I may have read it wrong). The formula is prima facia wrong as it does not reflect the correct method of combining statistical data. This isn't too importang because your weighting of polls has a higher impact.

41 posted on 06/16/2004 11:51:09 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Doctor Stochastic
I think that there is an error in your formula.

I'll look again at the formula that I summarized on the methodology page. My description of weighting is correct, but I may not have summarized the formula properly.

What's the correct way of combining statistical data? I admit to being an amateur (Dammit, Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a statistician). I wanted to do more than a straight average because I believe Likley Voter polls should be weighted more heavily than Registered Voter polls, or all adults.

46 posted on 06/16/2004 12:15:47 PM PDT by Darth Reagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson