You accuse me of writing rubbish yet you claim you don't even know about other forms of research? 
F*ck's sake.
F*ck's sake.
-
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post. -
You could debate it on a forum and the influence point wouldn't matter because no one would be explicitly or implicitly ascribing neutrality to the outcome.
As for your scepticism argument, it's not valid. I'm not prejudging the outcome, I'm saying the entire underpinning of your 'methodology' is flawed, or, more accurately, not the solid, reliable foundation you claim it to be.
And you haven't even approached the essence of my point about the meaning of any statistically significant differences you may uncover. Quite apart from sample size - and breaks within it - and other methodological problems such as self-selection, even if there is a significant difference between two or more segments, the idea that random speculations about the causes completely undermines the point. Yes, there might be a difference but all we have are guesses about what it means.
I log on to hear other people's views, not how many people think a certain way. That is best achieved through discussion, rather than counting up votes. Perhaps that's why it's called a discussion forum, not an opinion measurement site..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
DeletedComment
-
Well I thought it was all a bit if fun anyway.Trey Nyoni: countdown to stardom-2 years1year0.5 yearsComment
-
No, it's a way of obscuring that.Originally posted by ISMF View Post.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Yep so did I.*Except Michael, who died.Comment
-
Oh dear, what did I miss?.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
That it the entire point.Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
This is not a scientific study it is a football survey (I never claim a solid basis). The main aim (as stated in first post) is there simply to provide the basis for debate, through discussion.
When you see the results, the whole point is that we all speculate why those results are as they are (stimulating debate). If your that way inclined you can dismiss it as methodology error, but if you see that 70% think say Rodgers man management is he best attribute, you start asking why ?
If you see 60% are happy 8th or below you ask why ? or that half dont value the europa league, you ask why ?
I am not here to provide all the answers, but to provide the questions.
Thats why your argument that polls obscure debate or opinions is complete opposite of what is true.Comment
-
wellp.
this thread is ruined.dave of mutilation
Comment
-
There's no basis for discussing why, you've got no data. All you've got is what (maybe).
And at the same time you've explicitly excluded unquantified data from being worthy of discussion while shaping future discussion around what may prove to be statistical quirks.
I never stop asking why about anything anyone posts on here. I don't need polls for that process.
But then my process is that if one person says something that makes me think then that's enough, I don't need a big number of people saying the same thing to take something seriously.
It's the quality of the insight that matters, not the quantity of people claiming to hold a view. I'm much more interested in one person's insight about Rodgers' man-management skills if they bring something new to the picture, some new theory or explanation or observation.
Here's an example: lots of football fans think zonal defending is ****. So is it ****? If it isn't **** then how can so many football fans be wrong? Maybe it's **** if you look at it from the point of British adherence to man-to-man but the fact that fans in Italy and Spain don't see it that way suggests maybe the roots lie in their their different footballing cultures?
Or just maybe all it really indicates is that lots of British football fans get their views from half-arsed pundits on Sky who at best don't try to understand why so many top managers use it and at worst have a personal agenda against (some of) them. So it tells me about media influence but it doesn't tell me anything interesting at all about football whatsoever.
If that's what you want to do then fine. But I stand by my view that it degrades conversation rather than aids it..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
I will leave you with one real stat for the night. 1.2% of people that responded were from Uruguay (An actual result). Something as simple as that should be interesting to most fans.
What ever your criticisms, that is something worthy of debate, something were the number is everything, as it has direct implications for the number of fans in that country following us.
Whilst you believe in quality rather than quantity of opinion. In the real world both matter. It was the number of fans not turning up at anfield, that got Hodgson sacked, if majority of fans are unhappy finishing 5th Rodgers has a much harder job.
You may disagree with the idiots that boo player/manager/owners, but it does not matter how well you put across an arguement (in such an instance), its the quantity rather than the quality that are having the influence.Last edited by ISMF; 11-02-13, 01:17 AM.Comment
-
The times they are a changin'.Comment
-
It only as direct implications of the number of fans reading the forums where you posted this.Originally posted by ISMF View Post
You need to take into account that the country:
a) does not have English as a primary language
b) only as 51% internet penetration compared to 82% in the UK.
c) even if they do speak English and have internet access they will not necessarily seek out English football forums
If this kind of assumption is the basis of your research its flawed at a much more fundamental level than your questions.Last edited by EwarWoo; 11-02-13, 02:59 AM.Comment
-
But if its American fans who post on English forums surely its a biased sample as its fans who spend a lot of time amongst English fans? For example I wouldn't expect LDH to have the same view as a typical american due to the amount of time he spends here. At some level he's poluted by our inate negativity and cynicism.Originally posted by ISMF View PostComment
-
truth. i was an eternal optimist before i met you dickheads.dave of mutilationComment
Comment