Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9101935" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, it doesn't. Again, for the sample size of the survey alone, 10 people is 0.00025%. Statistical numbers are hard, so lets try something to give you a perspective on that. The odds of being born with detectable hearing loss in one or more ears is 0.003%. That is over TEN TIMES more statistically significant than a population of ten amongst 40 thousand. A sample size of ten, in this context, is meaningless. It is FAR too small a sample size to determine ANYTHING.See, this is where you keep stumbling. Yes, of course we expect the poll to be misunderstood by some people. That's blatantly obvious. Not because it is flawed, but because PEOPLE are flawed. I recently in training for my new position had a guy I was communicating with who didn't know his own boss's job title. I've seen people put in OTHER people's names when asked for a name. I, myself, have stood up from a chair, walked into a room, and forgotten why I did so. You wouldn't expect someone my age to forget something like that without a serious mental concern right? Except we know it happens ALL THE TIME. To everyone. Someone, somewhere, for some reason is always going to misunderstand your question. Always.By doing what? Creating a new survey, with untested methods, and asking that survey to rank people's perceptions of their own understanding? To hire hundreds of thousands of people to go and, in person, talk to people who have taken or seen these surveys? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars should WoTC throw at this because you think there might be a problem, because you found a bare handful of people who misunderstood something? You remember when you mentioned Light Bulb testing? You said something about testing 10 bulbs. I can't find a modern example, but here's an older picture. This is the type of testing that they ACTUALLY did. [ATTACH=full]292912[/ATTACH]Which, you may note, is more than 10. What evidence is available? The fact that you think they took it as a no? That isn't evidence. And I don't need to provide "counter-evidence" to a non-evidenciary claim. Right now you are doing the equivalent of declaring that Ford doesn't know how to design trucks, because you know you found a stupid flaw in their trucks, and your buddy agreed with you. Why would anyone take that sort of claim seriously? I shouldn't have to do more than point out how ridiculously successful they are to call into question that they are incompetents who don't know what they are doing.I don't know how many people fill out the text box. 5% would still get them two thousand written responses, which seems like more than the total number of users on this entire site. And, it also feels incredibly low. What do they do in cases there isn't written responses? They follow their data processing process. And until you can explain to me, in detail, why that process is flawed, I see no reason to assume it must be flawed.You claim they are incompetent. Incapable of doing their jobs, after a decade of wild success. My claim is that, since they have seen wild success, and have been seeing that success for a decade.... they likely are not incompetent. That is still logic. I've explained my reasoning. I don't need internal documents, secret data files, or to interview a hundred thousand people to know that Wizards of the Coast is one of the most successful RPG companies of all time, and that 5e DnD is their most successful product line.Right, so those things which were not playtested and were not surveyed and had a rating of 20% do not reflect upon the playtest and survey process. That process can only start AFTER the initial release. So stop bringing them up like they prove your point.</blockquote>

Verification