i had no hypothesis. was just surprised that the numbers were so close. so i guess i should not feel that it was remarkable. but just accept that i am an idiot who is easily amused. either that or went bonkers long time ago. thanks for the input. a. On 21 Jul 2011, at 17:26, Dan Krimm wrote: > On Thu, July 21, 2011 12:44 pm, Avri Doria wrote: > >> ( >> personal aside, I find it remarkable that the >> two ratios came out so close given proportional >> voting based on organizational size or individual status - > got to be amused by the little things in this job >> or you will go completely bonkers! >> ) > > > This sort of thing is my occupation these days (policy research, > statistical analysis), so permit me to engage this tangent. > > What this indicates is that the probability of response (or non-response) > is not correlated with (i.e., appears to be independent of) the vote-count > per respondent. (I checked it per respondent type, and it is comparably > close across types: large = 7/21 = 33.333%, small = 22/64 = 34.375%, > individual = 55/166 = 33.133%) > > Why this should be remarkable or not is an open question. :-) > > Why would you hypothesize that they would be different? Did you think > institutional members would be systematically different (on average) from > individual members, in this regard? Do you have a theory of response that > predicts this? > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and > do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. >