 Poster: A snowHead
|
| abc wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| andy wrote: |
| it's only difficult if you're trying to second guess the reason for a question. or interpret the question to decide how to answer it. |
No I'm trying to quantify what is meant by terrorism or natural disaster in order to decide how much it would affect my intended behaviour. |
What do people think surveys are for? Do you really believe it would have any impact on policy, whatever that is? Your exact answer isn't as important as you think. But your participation is 100 times more important.
When dealing with a crowd, you really don't want to delve into the individual, nor the specific. You're looking at "the average". So if most people are not fazed by earthquakes, it's important to know than if most people are turning away with any mentioning of terrorist act.
If the survey questions are too specific, it totally loses its purpose of getting some "trend" on a topic. It only covers the specific case included in the survey. Who needs that? |
Agree
| Whitegold wrote: |
It is easy to fill in.
But a selfselected, small-scale, small-sample, limited-demographic, underdefined, unquantified survey ain't gonna win any research awards... |
You don't need a huge data set before it becomes statistically relevant. And how do we know the OP is only looking at skiing? She may collecting data from a number of other adventure sports. It would be interesting to know wnether, on average, skiers are more or less likely to be influenced by certain things than, say, scuba divers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Well she claims the survey is about crisis recovery in tourism hotshots. I just thought some sort of measure of the scale of crisis that started people's behaviour might be useful. I can buy the idea that general responses may be more useful than the specific but I suspect that reaching her total number of responses is more important than everyone having thought they were answering the same question.
It's hardly going to be a startling relevation than War>Terrorism>Eggs at breakfast come from caged hens when it comes to putting off people from a holiday destination.
Stuff like this can be dangerous because it gets turned into "95% of people say a fear of terrorism is affecting their holiday plans" headlines which send airline stock tumbling etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@lisadavison92, why do "we need to be more careful" now, more than ever.
This is consistently and has been for some time absolutely and relatively the safest time ever to travel. On any metric.
Although, I will grant that this is not what the media would have you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
.....Albeit that nice boutique Tour Operator in Fallujah is finding times a bit tough
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Yeah, well, there are hotspots and all, @Dave of the Marmottes.
But as a case series in point, in the mid-70s a commercial airliner was hijacked in the US on a more or less weekly basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Actually there are some interesting digressions here - given I have to pass through major London stations almost daily and airports frequently what does being more careful actually mean?
I can avoid consciously sitting next to an Arabic looking gentleman in a vast puffa coat with a lumpy looking waistline on a 30 degree day and I can alert staff to unattended baggage but I can't meaningfully impact my general safety other than trying to minimise the time I spend transiting such potential targets.
In such a context the degree of risk I face on holiday is always going to be lower than the thoroughly ordinary risks I face during a working week or weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of months ago all the newspapers were running articles questioning whether Sharm El Sheik can ever come back from its current state of near collapse; I guess people are being "more careful" in their travel plans by simply not going to Sharm El Sheik.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@miranda, I would happily go back to Sharm if anyone started again to fly direct from Geneva.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@under a new name, don't tell me, tell the survey!
I'm planning a trip to Nice in October - more worried about Tiger mosquitos than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Themasterpiece wrote: |
| ... You don't need a huge data set before it becomes statistically relevant. And how do we know the OP is only looking at skiing? She may collecting data from a number of other adventure sports. It would be interesting to know wnether, on average, skiers are more or less likely to be influenced by certain things than, say, scuba divers. |
I suppose you mean "statistically significant". If you do you're wrong; if you don't, You can you're rong for other reasons (I'm not convinced by that but it's funny).
It's fairly easy to google down other posts pushing the same "survey".
Can you recall even one of these "survey monkey" people posting back their "interesting" results?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| philwig wrote: |
Can you recall even one of these "survey monkey" people posting back their "interesting" results? |
I would assume they forget about it the moment they hand their final study in and go and get pissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Every single one of these threads goes the same way - peppy intro, people genuinely interested in helping provided it's not a data harvesting exercise. Then ambiguity, little to no engagement by the poller and a suspicion that supervisors don't challenge surveys before issue and/or the pilot polling is never used to improve a survey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Every single one of these threads goes the same way . |
Generally involving you doing the grumpy old git routine and me doing the patronising nanny (as someone, not you, once described me) routine... I think you rather more kindly described yourself as a prick and me as a knightess in shining armour 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
That's fair.I can definitely see a bit of Brienne of Tarth about you. 
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Sun 14-08-16 22:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I'm significantly shorter but I love her - I'm taking the compliment!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| philwig wrote: |
Can you recall even one of these "survey monkey" people posting back their "interesting" results? |
Probably because every single one of those survey results were UNinteresting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Actually there are some interesting digressions here - given I have to pass through major London stations almost daily and airports frequently what does being more careful actually mean?
|
Well, I no longer see an unattended bag at a station and think "I'm having that!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| dode wrote: |
| Quote: |
Actually there are some interesting digressions here - given I have to pass through major London stations almost daily and airports frequently what does being more careful actually mean?
|
Well, I no longer see an unattended bag at a station and think "I'm having that!" |
Quite a few bags tackled by bomb disposal at Gare du Lyon this summer. Generally robbie the shotgun robot comes along, bang, and a load of Parisien ladies scanties come flying out. Followed closely by the bag's owner haranguing the bomb disposal guys "that's a grand's worth of silk underwear you've just ruined, you doofus, I was just in the shop buying some magazines".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
