Need help building your intranet? Click here!
| Navigational map -- for text only please go to the bottom of the page ||Forums|
Readers' Choice Awards (siteadm) Fri, 13 Jun
Audience and Legal Issues (w nau) Tue, 17 Jun
Clarification -- IT professional (rparker) Tue, 17 Jun

My apologies

Posted by: w nau
Date posted: Tue, 17 Jun 1997

Actually the full text said:

Lest the OS/2 fans among InfoWorld's readership question our methodology, here's how we conducted the survey: We selected a sample audience on an nth name random basis among InfoWorld's subscribers, a sampling that represents 76 percent of our entire qualified base. Then we hired First Market Research, in Austin, Texas, to conduct 300 telephone interviews between May 5 and May 12, screening out readers employed by any computer-related hardware or software vendors. The sampling variance ranges from plus or minus 2.5 percent to 5.8 percent.
I guess I was so blinded with rage by the time I got to the end of the last paragraph in the text that I missed that. Again, I apologize (and do so in the same forum which I made my mistake). I guess I was confused as to how sampling on a nth name random basis covers 76 percent of the entire qualified base. What in the world does that mean (I confess ignorance when it comes to stats)? I guess I was confused as to how the variance could range from 2.5 percent to 5.8 percent. Does that gaurantee at least a 2.5 percent error? I guess I was confused on how those percentages were arrived at considering the questions were open ended.

I still have several problems.

The paragraph before the one above still mentions "true readers' choice" when that's clearly not true (as apparently proven in the same article).

The editorial in the current issue is titled "Readers determined winners of this year's Readers' Choice awards". It states elsewhere that "We are confident that the telephone survey reflects the opinions of InfoWorld readers, both print and Electric." How can InfoWorld (she says "we" and she's the editor) be confident of this when Electric readers wern't polled this time, but when they were the result was much different. How can InfoWorld be confident this years second results are accurate when they don't relate to previous years results which were apparently accurate (to quote Rachel, "I believe that the errors made with this year's Product of the Year process are unique and that other survey-based material produced by InfoWorld meets our high editorial standards for credibility."). How can InfoWorld be confident when NT has such a small market share (one of many the arguments Sandy made when invalidating last survey in the previous forum).

I'm still trying to figure out why "The Voice of Client/Server in the Enterprise" excludes IT professionals and when that exclusion went into effect.

I'm also curious as to why InfoWorld considers me valuable enough to wave the subscription fee (probably not after today). I meet InfoWorld's qualifications which I assume they do for the purpose of their advertisers. Yes I said I used OS/2. I also said I use Unix (variations) and Windows (variations). Yes, I said I worked for a company that develops software and to some extent hardware. It's all true, yet I'm still good enough to qualify as a "READER" that deserves a free subscription. I'm guessing it's because of my influence in my company when it comes to purchasing hardware and software. However, I don't qualify as a "READER" when it comes to your "Readers' Choice" awards. Since when are IS and IT mutually exclusive? It was not until this second poll that InfoWorld made this decision. If InfoWorld doesn't think that IT professionals qualify as readers then stop qualifying them as readers by waving the $145/year subscription fee (which I totally expect to lose now). If you want to target IS, target IS.

Fraud? Maybe not. Misrepresentation? I think so. Deception? Probably. Inconsistent? Without a doubt.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The polling is severely flawed. InfoWorld has tarnished it's reputation. It's best to just take a few years off. It's not just OS/2 users that don't trust your polls. After the first poll was invalidated, the forum was flooded both people arguing both ways. The second poll is so severely flawed that no one is coming to the defense of InfoWorld. Perhaps, there's a remote chance, that the poll was no good.

On a personal note, I'm offended at the way Sandy's current editorial spends so much time talking about how poorly OS/2 did in the new poll. This woman has a chip on her shoulder. So do I, but I'm not the editor of an influential magazine (or newspaper as Rachel has been calling it).

It's been a long day. I need a nap.

Respond | Search | Help


For questions or comments, email the Forums Editor

kristin_kueter@infoworld.com