« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: existence of bad pollsters

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 06 Nov 12 7:35 PM | 75 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 11397 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 11394 by DigSpace)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

hi dig,

if google does it, then my guess is it is probably done by web search behaviour.

in general, it's still an early stage science.

but i am lazy. i leave it to the quants to figure out. in spite of what the pundits will tell you, he doesn't provide a simple average. for instance, he doesn't take a rasmussen poll at face value. he adjusts for the house effect (ie bias). i am pretty sure he also prioritises polling organisations. in his shoes, i would simply ignore data from folks who were consistently far off the mean.

by the way, sam wang at princeton has also adopted 332 this morning.

so now we have some quants at 303 and some at 332.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: existence of bad pollsters
By: DigSpace
in ALEA
Tue, 06 Nov 12 7:20 PM
Msg. 11394 of 54959

I have found that if I use pollster and just eliminate blindly internet, web, and robos that what I end up with looks much more sane. I think that disposes of all of those you cited e.g. It shrinks the sample a great deal, but the real outliers seem to depend on robos and web/internet.

It seems web/interent is insane, one has to see the poll first, which I assume is a function of going to a page where it is at, which seems like a massively biased event.

I suspect that if TheTrustMatrix and POPEII both ran web polls they would see different results, just as larryflint.com would undoubtedly massively over-represent tea party members of congress. Or maybe I don't get how web polling is done.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next