quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Good enough for me. The households are chosen by IPSOS, not just whoever wanders across the enter button on some generic survey.

A paper published by the U.S. Census Bureau reinforces serious questions about the reliability of surveys filled in by volunteer participants on the internet – and extends those concerns in a new direction.

Past research has thrown doubt on the ability of so-called “opt-in online panels” to produce results that accurately reflect the views of the broader population. The new study not only reinforces that evidence, it also calls into question whether such data are reliable for two other key purposes, evaluating changes over time and differences among groups.

...

That said, it’s rigorous work from researchers at the forefront of academic evaluations of survey data – and their conclusions are striking: “This investigation revealed systematic and often sizable differences between probability sample telephone data and non-probability internet data in terms of demographic representativeness of the samples, the proportion of respondents reporting various opinions and behaviors, the predictors of intent to complete the Census form and actual completion of the form, changes over time in responses, and relations between variables.”

For all its importance, this should not be an astonishing result. Opt-in online panels are comprised of people who sign up to click through questionnaires on the internet in exchange for points redeemable for cash and gifts. The use of these panels is vast, especially in market research, because it’s cheap and fast. But it’s also problematic, because the nature of opt-in panels violates the most basic principles of probability sampling.

We ruled out reporting opt-in online panels at ABC News more than a decade ago. In 2008 David Yeager, then another student of Krosnick’s, along with Krosnick and several of their colleagues, wrote a groundbreaking paper questioning the accuracy of opt-in online data. And a year ago the American Association for Public Opinion Research issued a report saying such panels should not be used to represent population values, should not be described as representative and should not claim a margin of sampling error.

Researchers should avoid nonprobability online panels when one of the research objectives is to accurately estimate population values. There currently is no generally accepted theoretical basis from which to claim that survey results using samples from nonprobability online panels are projectable to the general population. Thus, claims of “representativeness” should be avoided when using these sample sources. Further, empirical research to date comparing the accuracy of surveys using nonprobability online panels with that of probability-based methods finds that the former are generally less accurate when compared to benchmark data from the Census or administrative records. From a total survey error perspective, the principal source of error in estimates from these types of sample sources is a combination of the lack of Internet access in roughly one in three U.S. households and the self-selection bias inherent in the panel recruitment processes.


Although mode effects may account for some of the differences observed in comparative studies, the use of nonprobability sampling in surveys with online panels is likely the more significant factor in the overall accuracy of surveys using this method. The majority of studies comparing results from surveys using nonprobability online panels with those using probability-based methods (most often RDD telephone) report significantly different results on a wide array of behaviors and attitudes. Explanations for those differences sometimes point to classic measurement error phenomena such as social desirability response bias and satisficing. And indeed, the literature confirms that in many cases self administration by computer results in higher reports of socially undesirable behavior and less satisficing than in interviewer administered modes. Unfortunately, many of these studies confound mode with sample source, making it difficult to separate the impact of mode of administration from sample source. A few studies have attempted to disentangle these influences by comparing survey results from different modes to external benchmarks such as the Census or administrative data. These studies generally find that surveys using nonprobability online panels are less accurate than those using probability methods. Thus, we conclude that while measurement error may explain some of the divergence in results across methods the greater source of error is likely to be the undercoverage and self selection bias inherent in nonprobability online panels.

quote:

Why is it "gall" when a man stands up that you don't agree with, but "courage" or "balls" when a man stands up, and you agree with him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynn

quote:

Why is it "gall" when a man stands up that you don't agree with, but "courage" or "balls" when a man stands up, and you agree with him?

there' a fucking term for that firm, its "politics as usual"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

How about the fact that fewer and fewer people have land-line phones,where most of the polling takes place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Non disclosure agreements migh,I repeat might be the explanation you are looking for pops.That and the fact that he is now a high profile candidate for the nomination.
What do you think pops...is it possible that might explains things ? Or will you be sticking to the "something's rotten in Denmark" theory [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

How about the fact that fewer and fewer people have land-line phones,where most of the polling takes place.

Valid issue, but not pertinent to the immediate polls, I don't think.

Firm

quote:

Well gee Mike wouldn't you think they'd come up with names, dates, places times, circumstances? Or at least sources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Umm, Firm, perhaps you missed the parts where Cain told part of the story that never was.  Or you missed that 2 women received settlements and signed non-disclosure agreements--they can't talk about it!!  Or perhaps you missed the story of the radio personality who told of how Cain harassed 2 of his female employees?? 

When Clinton said "I never had sex with that woman", the republicans pushed and pushed until the full story came out.  Why is it you don't seem to want the full story to come out this time?

1.  A Republican is immediately guilty on accusation.

2.  A Democrat deserves the benefit of the doubt ... even after he has been convicted.

quote:

The bastard had the gall to scold the reporters for caring about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

He said so: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/06/trending-cain-scolds-reporters-end-of-story-to-sexual-harassment-claims/

The bastard had the gall to scold the reporters for caring about it.

This pisses me off no end.  The Fourth Estate has a DUTY to stand up to this.  They've been far too deferential to elected officials and candidates.

Hopefully, it'll continue to be talked about, and the articles will include statements that the Cain campaign refuses to respond.

So ... do any of the reported "stories' contain any supporting facts?  Or is it just all anonymous sources this and that?

If there are no facts, it's not a news story.  It can be an opinion piece, or a political analysis, but its not a news story.

So, not only is it "over", it never really began.  It wasn't news to start with.

Why is it "gall" when a man stands up that you don't agree with, but "courage" or "balls" when a man stands up, and you agree with him?

Firm