= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Open thread, Oct. 6 - Oct. 12, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (332)
Do not read the following if you haven't voted yet!
SERIOUSLY!
It's interesting to notice the almost perfect bell curve, centered but slightly nudged toward more activity. My hypotheis: the majority of people noticed no change (me included), but were swayed by your opening comment.
Possibly not because there wasn't any change, but because our brains aren't so good at measuring this kind of data.
OK, lets have a look at what happens after I changed the text.
For the record: This is the original wording:
Original text:
These are the numbers of the poll options right now:
0
0
1
7
13
4
1
Not exactly on topic, but If you are measuring something objective (like quantity of activity), and not something subjective (like quality of activity), you are usually better off using an objective test (like number of posts) instead of a subjective one (like a self-report Likert scale).
Maybe someone can do the database query again and post the result?
But pure number of posts (which I'd bet has increased) isn't the only criteria, or?
Would get more reliable results if you tried not to prime respondents.
Ah yes. Very well observed. Should have rot13 it. Or posted separately.