It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby TollandRCR » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:37 pm

Focus groups are quite likely to lead you astray. The social dynamics produce weird results, as shown by[/break1]youtube.com/watch?v=624FxhJlVM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=624FxhJlVM0

User avatar
ducktape
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby ducktape » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:22 pm

Focus groups are quite likely to lead you astray. The social dynamics produce weird results, as shown by[/break1]youtube.com/watch?v=624FxhJlVM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=624FxhJlVM0

It's so true -- you tend to end up with the opinions of the two most dominant people because the others just back down.In the late 1990s-early 2000s, I facilitated the online focus groups for Knowledge Networks. Most of their polling was by survey of their panels, and they had placed WebTV Plus boxes with each of them for that purpose (put everyone on the same platform, and one that required no computer or technical skills). We were consulting for them on other things, and at the time we ran a weekly chat+radio show of our own. It was something like Blogtalk Radio, except that we used IRC for the chat and broadcast in RealAudio, which WebTVs could also use. We made some custom interfaces so that people could easily chat and listen.All of this may sound ordinary, but we started doing it in 1997. As far as I know, we invented the format, as we certainly weren't aware of anyone else doing anything like it. So that's how we did the KN Focus Groups, using the same set-up (and a custom interface), and they were really effective. We got a very clean chat transcript of question and answers, since all of the coaching was done in audio (I would paste the question into the transcript in a different color so that they were distinguished). We also had the ability to shut people up without their realizing that they had been, private message a participant, and wrote a nickserver that would cloak the actual chat name with a pseudonym for privacy (because WebTV normally used your email address as your chat nick). Best of all, though, was that people couldn't be drowned out or intimidated by someone who was more opinionated. The results were quite good.And sometimes, quite fun. My very favorite focus group of all was the set we did for Smirnoff high-proof vodka, which became something like a party that nobody wanted to end.But normally, focus groups tell you what you want to hear. That's not necessarily what you NEED to hear.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 4483
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby Sugar Magnolia » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:32 pm

Don't know what other areas the State Farm ad is running in but it's on constantly here.

User avatar
DryInk
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: King of OffTopica
Contact:

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby DryInk » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:24 pm

Interracial dating/marriage aside, this clueless idiot does not seem to recognize the racism in his statement that intelligent, well-educated black men are hard to find.

Hell, intelligent, well-educated available men are hard to find in general, lol. [highlight]If one adds in the requirement that they not be assholes[/highlight], the world becomes a small place.

Crap, that rules me out.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9246
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby esseff44 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:52 pm

Don't know what other areas the State Farm ad is running in but it's on constantly here.

No doubt the advertising agency checks the latest census figures before selecting which ad airs where. After all, it is the Department of Commerce that is in charge of the census. Most of the questions are for the purpose of commercial interests and they sell the block information..without the names and SS# of course..but all the demographic and economic information....block by block. Have you ever looked at your block? How hard is it to figure out who is who? #-o Just something else to data mine. I just let them guess at mine. No forms from my address except what they make up. It's just about all wrong information. Only people like Sankey, Hendershot and other PI's hired by O'rly would pay too much attention to those data bases. GIGO. Credit reports. Same thing. Tax Assessor rolls. Same thing. They are all full of errors. Not lies, ...sometimes lies....mostly errors. Accurate data are really hard to come up with unless you verify, cross-check, triangulate, and reconfirm from many angles.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby TollandRCR » Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:53 pm

The Census has always restricted information released at the block level and has always suppressed information if the cell size is too small. The old samples were never constructed to be representative of blocks, so most of the sensitive data were never available at the block level. Today's Census does not even collect the detailed economic, occupational, and educational data. That is done by the American Community Survey, which is a sample, not a census. Data cannot be generated at the block level from the ACS.There are all sorts of private firms that pretend to have such data.

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby MsDaisy » Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:57 am

Retaliation…I love it! =)) =)) =)) =))

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 4483
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby Sugar Magnolia » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:23 am

Retaliation…I love it! =)) =)) =)) =))

Yes! Chew on THAT, assholes.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8298
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby Whatever4 » Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:39 am

OK, actual laugh out loud that woke Ellie up and now she wants to play the 219th game of BALL today. [-X

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9246
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby esseff44 » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:04 pm

The Census has always restricted information released at the block level and has always suppressed information if the cell size is too small. The old samples were never constructed to be representative of blocks, so most of the sensitive data were never available at the block level. Today's Census does not even collect the detailed economic, occupational, and educational data. That is done by the American Community Survey, which is a sample, not a census. Data cannot be generated at the block level from the ACS.There are all sorts of private firms that pretend to have such data.

So you might like to think.* I might agree with you if I had not accessed the information for my little block and was able to figure out pretty much who was who in which household. If I had used other public resources such as tax assessor records, white pages, court filings, internet postings, I could have pin-pointed everyone with close to 100 % accuracy. Granted I have not attempted this recently with the latest census, but I did with the last one. * using the stern tone of the character in the BBC version spoken to the camera explaining the inner machinations of governmentAs for sampling, I remember those discussions. Some groups were for and others against sampling for their own particular interests. If a sample is too small, it is not worth much. The sample could be big enough to include almost everyone and still be called ''a sample.'" I have this same discussion about the meaning of 'random'' a few days ago. You could choose random applications to check for veracity of information supplied on the application. The theory is this deters people from trying to cheat and entering false information. Of course, this only works if they know people get caught. Random could mean anything more than zero and less than 100% of the applications would be verified. It's like the old Skinner experiments with chickens pecking a button for food that was later applied to slot machines. If the reward is random but too infrequent, the chicken gives up after a while.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 8298
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby Whatever4 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm

Kids respond to the Cheerios commercial.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby TollandRCR » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:59 pm

So you might like to think.* I might agree with you if I had not accessed the information for my little block and was able to figure out pretty much who was who in which household. If I had used other public resources such as tax assessor records, white pages, court filings, internet postings, I could have pin-pointed everyone with close to 100 % accuracy. Granted I have not attempted this recently with the latest census, but I did with the last one.

This risk of re-identification has risen substantially with the availability of external databases, some public-access and some not, some useful and many not. It was probably always possible for a really well informed neighborhood snitch to make good guesses about who was who in the Census data, but now the problem is serious enough that we may lose access to some of the small-geography aggregate Census data to which we once had access.





This risk is discussed in a long series of reports of the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council, published by the National Academies Press. The aim of those reports has been to provide advice to the government on how it can provide access for the public to the data for which they have paid while still abiding by the terms of Title 13, which protects the privacy and confidentiality of the data. Expanding Access to Research Data: Reconciling Risks and Opportunities (2005) provides a good overview of what was then known and could then be anticipated.





We may end up in a world in which none of the data released are real. They will instead be synthesized or modeled data in which the statistical results would be "the same" as if you were working with real data, but there are no real people, families, households, or dwellings in the data set. I have opposed that but see it coming.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31031
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:11 pm

I saw the commercial again today while working out with my personal trainer, Vinnie. The only problem we found with the commercial was that it encouraged eating grains. That is a problem in 2013.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

It's 2013, Why IN HELL Is This A Problem?

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:19 pm

I saw the commercial again today while working out with my personal trainer, Vinnie. The only problem we found with the commercial was that it encouraged eating grains. That is a problem in 2013.

Bah! Oats are good for you!


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests