The sample was barely over 2k people. The survey was only conducted once.
So maybe, just maybe, having a larger sample size per survey coupled with multiple surveys throughout a time period would give drastically different results.
Also, the survey was done online. I've been down on much luck financially enough to go find a "do surveys for pennies" website before and I've taken YouGov surveys that way. I didn't take them all that seriously as I was needing to crank out surveys as fast as I could to get gas money.
As another commenter said, "take this survey with a grain of salt".
what you really want is having a representative sample e.g. making sure that out of those 2000 people, they are, roughly, a good reflection across ethnicity, gender, religion, occupation, state, so on, so forth; if that were the case, (which I doubt) then 2000 would not be out of question as being a decent survey
a lot of pretty important psych papers have sample sizes way below 2000, for example, in fact, the bigger the sample size, for some statistical tests (not pertinent for the current subject of discussion) the more likely that you'll get false positive results (type II errors)
that's just how psychometrics is sometimes
more to the point, a poll that someone else points out disagrees with this poll (https://hexbear.net/post/271974/comment/3521696) was done on 1000 respondents; technically, as long as a sample is representative, its number would not matter unless it was under, let's say, 100 respondents
The sample was barely over 2k people. The survey was only conducted once.
So maybe, just maybe, having a larger sample size per survey coupled with multiple surveys throughout a time period would give drastically different results.
Also, the survey was done online. I've been down on much luck financially enough to go find a "do surveys for pennies" website before and I've taken YouGov surveys that way. I didn't take them all that seriously as I was needing to crank out surveys as fast as I could to get gas money.
As another commenter said, "take this survey with a grain of salt".
what you really want is having a representative sample e.g. making sure that out of those 2000 people, they are, roughly, a good reflection across ethnicity, gender, religion, occupation, state, so on, so forth; if that were the case, (which I doubt) then 2000 would not be out of question as being a decent survey
a lot of pretty important psych papers have sample sizes way below 2000, for example, in fact, the bigger the sample size, for some statistical tests (not pertinent for the current subject of discussion) the more likely that you'll get false positive results (type II errors)
that's just how psychometrics is sometimes
more to the point, a poll that someone else points out disagrees with this poll (https://hexbear.net/post/271974/comment/3521696) was done on 1000 respondents; technically, as long as a sample is representative, its number would not matter unless it was under, let's say, 100 respondents
I didn't say it was completely unusable, just leaning towards "grain of salt" more than "evidence of future trend".
Or at least that was my intent.
oh, i see, i see, for what it's worth i completely agree with you, sorry for the unwarranted mansplain
No worries, its the internet, about half of out intent when trying to communicate with each other winds up failing to be conveyed. :solidarity:
2000 people is more than enough, the problems with Yougov aren't sample size related.
It’s a weird sample. Also 31% of black respondents opposed? Over sampling of young “Hotep” types?