Mr Kirsch… catching up on emails, forgive my being a little late to the party. I see you just dropped a bomb on me. As much as I wanted to (tried to), I did not answer this survey because of requested phone number. I get hammered w robo calls so I choose not to give phone. Now, reading this post a month later, I see the method to your ma…
Mr Kirsch… catching up on emails, forgive my being a little late to the party. I see you just dropped a bomb on me. As much as I wanted to (tried to), I did not answer this survey because of requested phone number. I get hammered w robo calls so I choose not to give phone. Now, reading this post a month later, I see the method to your madness, SURVEY INTEGRITY. Real science data!! Hot damn!!
“Over 10,000 readers responded.The results were not anonymous. To respond and be counted, you had to include your contact information. This is a huge benefit compared to a “scientific survey.” In a “scientific survey,” you normally aren’t allowed to collect the identity of the responder, so it must be anonymous. So in a “scientific survey,” the peer-reviewers cannot verify whether the research was telling the truth or not. In my survey, they can. Which one is more trustable?”
It seems you have also exposed the weakness in most (all?!) “scientific surveys”, lack of identifying the respondents to verify answers by independent researchers! BINGO!!
Mr Kirsch… catching up on emails, forgive my being a little late to the party. I see you just dropped a bomb on me. As much as I wanted to (tried to), I did not answer this survey because of requested phone number. I get hammered w robo calls so I choose not to give phone. Now, reading this post a month later, I see the method to your madness, SURVEY INTEGRITY. Real science data!! Hot damn!!
“Over 10,000 readers responded.The results were not anonymous. To respond and be counted, you had to include your contact information. This is a huge benefit compared to a “scientific survey.” In a “scientific survey,” you normally aren’t allowed to collect the identity of the responder, so it must be anonymous. So in a “scientific survey,” the peer-reviewers cannot verify whether the research was telling the truth or not. In my survey, they can. Which one is more trustable?”
It seems you have also exposed the weakness in most (all?!) “scientific surveys”, lack of identifying the respondents to verify answers by independent researchers! BINGO!!
Mr Kirsch, I love your tenacity!!!