I’ll believe it when I see it. That kind of thing still exists on retail.
Because looking at an addon that filters chat channels is the pinnacle of Social Interactions!
1 Like
Did you ever play Wrath? Like, at all?
You’ve gone total schadenfreude.
No it’s not.
Because pressing a button and being instantly teleported to the dungeon is totally not much worse.
So let me just do what you did…
Yes it is…
300,000 population on TBCC. Biggest poll was done by willie i believe. 60ish K votes. Roughly 20% of population is a Vast Majority???
1 Like
Are you suggesting that if a poll doesn’t ask every single person in the US, it’s not accurate?
No im just saying stop using it as a marker for the majority of the whole population. I could use every single poll from 2016 election for an expample if you want…
I would word it like this. The majority of willies viewers would like rdf in wrath classic.
2016 election polls were accurate though because they predicted +2-3% in favour of Clinton and that’s what the final result was in terms of popular vote. However US elections are of course based on the electoral college so someone can win the presidency with fewer votes (as it happened in 2016).
Read up on sample sizes and error margins. With a sufficiently random sample (i.e. not just a public poll on a forum somewhere with a more particular demographic of viewers) you can get an accurate reading of popular opinion with a seemingly low amount of participants. A sample size of 1000 will have an error margin of 4%, for example. If Blizzard gets 20k votes in a randomised sample that would actually yield a result very close to the true value, and if it’s extremely lopsided e.g. 60% in favour of LFD and 40 against or vice versa, it would be evident and unlikely to be incorrect.
Believing that survey size needs to be close to the total population to have a low error margin is a common argument and also statistically illiterate.
N.B. In actual polling there’s a lot more to it like demographic weighting and turnout models and people definitely should learn more about this before discussing political polling because there are a hell of a lot of awful takes out there from people who should really know better. But here in WoW it’s just a simple survey so an automated invite-only survey directly sent to a few thousand battle.net accounts should give an accurate reading.
1 Like
She lost bro move on lol
What does that have to do with the point at hand? You tried to use the US 2016 national election as an example of how polling apparently doesn’t work and that’s flawed.
Do you still think a sample size of 60k out of a population of 300k is insufficient and prone to inaccuracy? Because that’s still wrong (given the 60k is randomly selected).
Yeah, it’s because some people don’t understand that the US operates by design that rural and lower population have more voting power than higher population and more densely packed votes do.
One vote should be one vote.
2 Likes
So CNN polls 1000 of its viewers… 99% of its viewers are democrats. CNN releases a poll saying 75% of america voted democrat … this is accurate to you? Bc this is how they do polls lol
Its set up this way so that 2 states New York and california (poop shows btw) dont control rest of the country… thank god for that.
politics has entered the thread.
4 Likes
Instead you have states who rely on NY/California to stay afloat deciding policy for them.
2 Likes
LFD or RDF? i Want RDF, Not the Current LFD crap Retail Model they’re putting into wotlk.
My post literally says a random sample must be used and you immediately go “what if the sample isn’t random???” 
And no, that’s not how CNN does its polls. They contract a polling firm (namely SSRS) that does random sampling with weighting via landline and mobile.
…at least that is true for things like voting preference and approval rating. There are viewer polls sometimes but a) they are indeed useless and no one really cares for them b) they are not what we are talking about when discussing things like voting preferences and c) CNN in particular isn’t even the worst offender when it comes to these.
Didn’t want to continue the political discussion but, oh well. You should read up on why the electoral college was actually introduced. I think you will be quite surprised and disgusted.
Yes part of the modern reasoning is that they want to prevent smaller states from being trampled by larger states and that’s a respectable goal. The problem with this electoral system is it flips that situation and lets smaller states trample on larger states. That’s not better regardless of how much you think the larger states are “poop shows” (and again I think you should read up on these things such as the state economy and human development rankings… I think you will be surprised). Let’s also not forget that state electors can literally just ignore how their state voted and submit their votes for the other side. It’s a disaster of an electoral system that’s not equipped at all for modern society and I’m glad to live somewhere that does it much more sensibly.
But never mind all that political stuff. The whole point here is that your original argument is fallacious. You do not need a survey size close to the actual population size to get an accurate reading of the popular opinion. Let’s use another example: in my country a few years ago they decided to run a plebiscite for… an unnamed political issue… even though public opinion had already been measured by polling to be quite one-sided on this (about 63% For, 37% Against). People insisted that polls weren’t accurate and we needed to literally spend millions of dollars to ask each and every citizen in a plebiscite. They did just that and the results were just about exactly what the polls found.
If you’re trying to gauge majority/minority support for an issue and an opinion survey gives you a result of 60% for and 40% against, if the sample was sufficiently random the issue is as good as settled.
2 Likes
You must’ve missed the conversation we had about confirmation biases…
If people content with the announcement had exigence to seek out polls disputing it, I’m willing to bet the numbers would look the other way around because reasons.
People’s motivations often affect the world we perceive around us.