<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Using misleading pie charts to attack the iPad</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/07/using-misleading-pie-chart-to-attack-the-ipad/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/07/using-misleading-pie-chart-to-attack-the-ipad/</link>
	<description>Kindle Review, Kindle Fire Review, New Kindle Review, Kindle 4 Review</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 22:36:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: FUD Award of the Week &#171; MINISTRY OF DISINFORMATION</title>
		<link>http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/07/using-misleading-pie-chart-to-attack-the-ipad/#comment-11237</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FUD Award of the Week &#171; MINISTRY OF DISINFORMATION]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ireaderreview.com/?p=9823#comment-11237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] both PC World and Ranthi win the award for not stating some of the differences in their two surveys, instead the focus of the article is one negative result of the survey for the iPad, citing a 100% [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] both PC World and Ranthi win the award for not stating some of the differences in their two surveys, instead the focus of the article is one negative result of the survey for the iPad, citing a 100% [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: iPad Survey Results- FUD Appears &#171; MINISTRY OF DISINFORMATION</title>
		<link>http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/07/using-misleading-pie-chart-to-attack-the-ipad/#comment-11071</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[iPad Survey Results- FUD Appears &#171; MINISTRY OF DISINFORMATION]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ireaderreview.com/?p=9823#comment-11071</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] customers who won&#8217;t purchase the device, the best job in deconstructing this data was done by Kindle Week cited by Phillip DeWitt in [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] customers who won&#8217;t purchase the device, the best job in deconstructing this data was done by Kindle Week cited by Phillip DeWitt in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: switch11</title>
		<link>http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/07/using-misleading-pie-chart-to-attack-the-ipad/#comment-11041</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[switch11]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ireaderreview.com/?p=9823#comment-11041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[thanks for the comment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for the comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://ireaderreview.com/2010/02/07/using-misleading-pie-chart-to-attack-the-ipad/#comment-11038</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ireaderreview.com/?p=9823#comment-11038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While you&#039;re right to point out a flaw in their analysis and execution of the survey, there are things wrong with your own.

1 + 2.  Generalizability is not always a feature of random surveying, and I&#039;d have to look at how exactly they did the survey taking and any analysis if any, it&#039;s often not unreasonable.  The wording they use &quot;consumers lose interest&quot; could definitely be changed, but it doesn&#039;t seem a big issue.  The real big issue is the loss of a question.  We have no idea of the responder loading before versus after announcement and how it may have changed, but it is clear that of individuals who believe they possess enough information to make a decision,  there are a great number who are uninterested.

3 + 4.  What you said under 3 is true, but I believe 4 is linked to it, and 4 is wrong.  People are more likely to pick an uncertain option that leaves room for a change in the decision if they don&#039;t possess a lot of information than they would be to express a certainty.  It&#039;s much more likely that the positive responses are over-represented for that reason than the negative responses.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While you&#8217;re right to point out a flaw in their analysis and execution of the survey, there are things wrong with your own.</p>
<p>1 + 2.  Generalizability is not always a feature of random surveying, and I&#8217;d have to look at how exactly they did the survey taking and any analysis if any, it&#8217;s often not unreasonable.  The wording they use &#8220;consumers lose interest&#8221; could definitely be changed, but it doesn&#8217;t seem a big issue.  The real big issue is the loss of a question.  We have no idea of the responder loading before versus after announcement and how it may have changed, but it is clear that of individuals who believe they possess enough information to make a decision,  there are a great number who are uninterested.</p>
<p>3 + 4.  What you said under 3 is true, but I believe 4 is linked to it, and 4 is wrong.  People are more likely to pick an uncertain option that leaves room for a change in the decision if they don&#8217;t possess a lot of information than they would be to express a certainty.  It&#8217;s much more likely that the positive responses are over-represented for that reason than the negative responses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

