69 people do not make a majority

Someone wrote in the Hotline to the Lindens board that 80% of the people do not want to go back to 1.6.13 However, this 80% is only 69 people and in all 86 people took part in the poll. I have walked around many areas of Second Life and almost by 100% people are very very very dissiappointed in 1.7.X.X

So I want to know, since when does the will of 69 people override the will of 78,000?

Since Bush became president, i dunno.

How can you have talked to all 78k users? if you had each conversation would have been 40 seconds long, and you would have been doing it non stop since the release of 1.7. So what you did was a sampling. 69 users is also a sampling. If you knew more about statistics and polling you would know that the results of the 69 user poll is valid.

Being disapointed and wanting to go back to 1.6 are not the same questions. It's so obvious that you should have relized the numbers can't be compaired.

*takes off trolling hat*

have a nice day

You're being pretty presumptuous on the will of the other 78,000 people there, aren't you?

I'm sorry, but your unscientific methods of polling the other 78,000 people need to be instantly discounted due to the frailties of your collection methods, which are questionable at best. In addition, being dissapointed with a release and going back to a previous release are two different questions and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

I am dissapointed in 1.7.x.x.x.x.x.x but going back to 1.6.x.x.x.x.x is not something I support. Mainly because it's just not possible But please, don't let that get in your way when rabble-rousing.

I thank you for your time and hope you take an interest in scientific methods in future!

I havn't. But everyone I talk to while walking around is very dissiappointed.

You know what I mean. And I am not presuming the other 78000 will vote one way or another. I am saying that 69 people are not a big enought majority. And I have talked to various people across SL and they are all dissiappointed. I did not talk to 78000.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

And I repeat, 69 people is not a majority. And I can tell you I talked to at least 3 times this number and with-out exception they all are against 1.7

No, I don't know what you mean at all. You said that when does the will of 69 people override the will of 78,000 - meaning that you're imparting the view that they would like to go back to 1.6.blah on those 78,000 people. And you used terms such as "almost by 100%" to re-affirm this view. You put the words in your own mouth.

I'm also saying that your unscientific debunking of the percentage is just as invalid as well. But, over and above all that, it's just not going to happen because of the technical requirements of doing it. But please don't let the weight of reality slow you down here.

You know how to twist words.

I am saying that 69 people is not a majority. I am saying that I have met quite a few people in Second Life and they are dissiappointed in 1.7

Sure we may not be able to go back. But the facts are still there... 69 people is not a majority and real people in SL, lots of them, do not like 1.7

Maybe if we gave everyone infinite money, 1.7's problems would go away.

LF

Thats got to be the first positive thing you have said about one of my post. And on that positive note, Jesika please close this thread of mine. Thanks

*bows down to Magnum Serpentine , who is certainly Goddess herself to _know_ the will of 78000 people*

Only until they re-activated the preview grid!

Then what you need to do is get those however many people you talked to to go vote...

A sampling was taken and 86 people participated.
Of that Sample of 86, 69 did not want to go back to 1.6.

69/86 > .5, therefore a majority of the sample does not want to go back to 1.6.

Since samples are used for statistical projection, and even a relatively small sample can provide moderately accurate results (within 2-3%), it is safe to say, since the sample provided a clear majority, that at least the majority ofthe kind of people that even bother to participate in such things do not want to roll back. The rest are often apathetic blobs that should eat what they're fed anyway. (Not to say that if you didn't participate then you are an apathetic blob... what I said was if you are the kind to not give feedback then you deserve what you get when it doesn't go the way you want. Jeez, it shouldn't be this complicated to get an idea across.)

Now... that said, you are also making the fallacious comparison between disappointment and a mandate for a rollback. They are not the same thing. I was disappointed in my weekend. I am not going to ask God for a rollback to Saturday so I can try again. there are some things that are not practical to ask for.

In the case of SL, if we roll back to 1.6, it will bork all those HUD implementations that people have paid good money for... are you going to reverse the transactions that took place? Because if we go back to 1.6, HUD is GONE. And everything that uses it, from combat systems to Dance/Theater animation sets to Sensor suites to card games are all going away. And makers of these objects have likely already spent their hard earned money... but the consumer will want a refund, since their product is now borked...

I am disappointed in 1.7 too. For some reason, if I stay in my home Sim, I have no problems, so I tend to do that a lot lately. But I also make use of some of the features in 1.7 and am not yet ready to ask for a rollback. If you talked to me and asked me if I was disappointed, and I answered yes, that does not give you the right to put words in MY mouth and say I want a rollback.

Seeing how barely 5% (or some other really statistically low percentage) even read the forums, that also means the 'minority' or 'majority' don't add up to jack.

Rolling back?

Every upgrade we see this, and every upgrade cycle is the same. FORWARD FULL THROTTLE, BABY! I'll also take a moment to add that 69 may not be a majority, but its certainly a SEXY combination!

The poll itself is invalid for a number of reasons. It was not conducted by a third-party independent of the issue at hand. The question is potentially biased. It does not randomly sample the resident population, and thus can't be extrapolated to represent views of the resident population as a whole. It has no measure of those persons that declined to take part in the poll. There is no measure of customer satisfaction prior to the release of version 1.7 for comparitive use. Even discounting the previous reasons and accepting the size of a volunteer "sample" the "sample" size itself is too small for a comfortable margin of error. Etcetera. Ad nauseum.

This does not mean the opinions expressed in response to the poll are more or less valid, or better or more poorly informed. Just that this type of "polling" method can be discounted out of hand if you're seeking a measurable response based in proper statistical polling methods. It also doesn't mean that these kinds of polls are bad. Just that you shouldn't rely on them when formulating a decision or course of action. The poll simply provided a conversational hook for the rest of its thread.

Fundamentally, the problem is not version 1.7 itself, but that a large number of active residents have passed their "resolution threshold" for a solution to certain problems affecting playability that have arisen since release of the new version. Even if LL had a system in place to measure customer satisfaction and escalated certain customer service issues it's unlikely that this would result in a more rapid solution to the current problem(s). It'll be fixed when it's fixed.

Well although the poll doesn't make a lot of sence, the reason you feel it invalid probably isn't true.. If you needed a majority of the population of the real world, before a poll became valid.. You'd have a very hard time getting a poll off the ground.. Even if it were just the majority of the country, county or state..

For example.. All shampoo adverts in the world.. "87 percent of women saw extra shinyness and bounce in their hair!!!! *tested on 112 women*

But everyone knows us forum-ers are cleverer than everyone else and know it'd be too much strife to go back to 1.6.X rather than just stick with 1.7 and work out the creases.. Don't we?

1. Actually, the post says "... about 80% of the people RESPONDING ...".

I agree that no generalization of "80%" to the entire population should be made because of self-selection of respondents (if you didn't care one way or the other, you wouldn't botther). However, the general trend would most certainly hold up.

2. The results do NOT say that the 80% are not disappointed with 1.7. It says that they would not go back to 1.6.13 instead, even if it were possible.

3. The sample size is not even a question. Having 86 respondents WOULD be a representative sample whether the population is 78,000 or, more realistically, 8000 to 10000 active user accounts. The reason it's not statistically defensible is the self-selection of the respondents, not the sample size.

4. Despite the obviously flaws with polls of this nature (even though the poll question in this case carefully lays out assumptions and has balanced and encompassing responses), the survey method applied as "walking around and asking people" has many more structural flaws: it is asking how people feel, and then lumping the responses into "disappointed" or "not disappointed". The sampler is face-to-face (virtually) with respondents and inevitably bringing his/her own feelings into play in the conversation. The sample is spatially biased, because only those the sampler walked around in had an opportunity to respond. The O.P. is applying the results (disappointed versus not disappointed) to a question not addressed in the survey. Etc.

5. That this poll was about a hypothetical case was stated and restated throughout the thread. No implication that the results would result in action (or inaction, as the case may be) was made. But that being said, the will of a few that speak up to override the will of a majority that doesn't speak up happens all the time in a democracy. Right or wrong, that's a fact of life.

I hear and share the O.P.'s frustration with 1.7 issues. But I still feel comfortable in saying that based on an opionion poll, most of us wouldn't go back, even if we could.

At 69 respondents, the margin of confidence would be +/- 12%. Hence, assuming the Poll was non-biased, at 80% yes, even in the worse case scenario of -12%, that sill leaves 68% which would still be indicative of a majority. Of course, the poll is too biased to draw any conclusions for, but assuming it was valid, you could conclude the majority based upon the sample size.

Abject sarcasm usually isn't seen as a positive note.

But I'll take it.

LF

EXACTLY MAGNUM'S POINT!!!

(Magnum is a girl?)

coco

Aww. Friends forever!

Now, if the person who put this in the Hotline to the lindens had said, in a poll of 86 people, 80% of them would not go back to 1.6.13, I would had not said a thing.

Say what???????????????????

no I am not.

No sarcasm intended. I was being very truthful.

Responding... Still does not give the size of the poll.