This headline on a CNN slideshow is either deliberately misleading or written by an editor who doesn't understand the basics of surveys and sampling.
Apparently not everyone learned their lesson from the 'IE users are dumb' hoax.
It'd sure help the rest of us if all who opine about standardized test results first had a basic understanding of statistics.
After years of chortling at those who could get worked up enough to launch flame wars like Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux or iOS vs. Android, I seem to be engaged in one of my own. All I wanted was some data....
'Independent data suggests' that Facebook is hemorrhaging, the story says. But the source of that data disagrees.
Interesting? Yes. Accurate measure of public sentiment? Maybe, maybe not. Election predictor? Probably not. Here's why.
Some of those users checking in each day may not even know it.
Intense media coverage of 'first-in-the-nation' Iowa caucuses can give the impression that results actually matter. They don't -- but not for the reason many skeptics cite.
A survey says 25% of teens plan to use Facebook less after the site's major design changes. Is that likely?
A company releases information about customers' choices; the story's picked up elsewhere with a rather broad conclusion. Does it stand up?