[008]
TripleElation
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I get what you\'re saying about the poll being unscientific. If anybody tried to present it to me within the terms of a scientific paper I would laugh in their face. I just don\'t feel we should be holding anything to these standards around here. Consider that virtually all examples in TVTropes, including subjective tropes, are listed just because one person decided to add that in. One person! Talk about unscientific! And here they asked \'\'over two hundred and fifty\'\' of them. If you\'re familiar with statistics (and I suspect you are), you\'d know that credibility gains are not linear. Just imagine for a minute that in truth, every example in here is prefaced by an invisible \
to:
I get what you\\\'re saying about the poll being unscientific. I just don\\\'t feel we should be holding anything to these standards around here. Consider that virtually all examples in TVTropes, including subjective tropes, are listed just because one person decided to add that in. One person! Talk about unscientific! And here they asked \\\'\\\'over two hundred and fifty\\\'\\\' of them. If you\\\'re familiar with statistics (and I suspect you are), you\\\'d know that credibility gains are not linear. Just imagine for a minute that in truth, every example in here is prefaced by an invisible \\\"ThisTroper thinks that...\\\". Any remotely decent poll compares \\\'\\\'mightily\\\'\\\' fine to that.
I believe you can have something that\\\'s not a shining beacon of research methodology but still has a point. The supposed sources of bias (Fans of one faction are more likely to answer polls? To go online? To flock to this specific website?) are purely theoretical and we have no reason to suspect they are true, as far as I can see. Again, that\\\'s not good enough in general, but I think it\\\'s good enough for here.
Why? Well, IMO when listing an example for a subjective trope we should take all the justification we can get (and this is about as good as it\\\'s going to get; nobody is going to conduct a rigorous investigation of nigh \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' mentioned in this website, ever). Decent justification is what staves off the inevitable \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" justifying edit and/or blanking with \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" edit summary and/or natter and/or obligatory YMMV stamp that waters down discussion until nothing is an example of everything, and you end up having to do an ExampleSectionectomy like in the {{Shipping}} article. But again, I see your point and I\\\'m fine with things as they are as long as we don\\\'t find ourselves slipping down that aforementioned slippery slope.
I believe you can have something that\\\'s not a shining beacon of research methodology but still has a point. The supposed sources of bias (Fans of one faction are more likely to answer polls? To go online? To flock to this specific website?) are purely theoretical and we have no reason to suspect they are true, as far as I can see. Again, that\\\'s not good enough in general, but I think it\\\'s good enough for here.
Why? Well, IMO when listing an example for a subjective trope we should take all the justification we can get (and this is about as good as it\\\'s going to get; nobody is going to conduct a rigorous investigation of nigh \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' mentioned in this website, ever). Decent justification is what staves off the inevitable \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" justifying edit and/or blanking with \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" edit summary and/or natter and/or obligatory YMMV stamp that waters down discussion until nothing is an example of everything, and you end up having to do an ExampleSectionectomy like in the {{Shipping}} article. But again, I see your point and I\\\'m fine with things as they are as long as we don\\\'t find ourselves slipping down that aforementioned slippery slope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I get what you\'re saying about the poll being unscientific. If anybody tried to present it to me within the terms of a scientific paper I would laugh in their face. I just don\'t feel we should be holding anything to these standards around here. Consider that virtually all examples in TVTropes, including subjective tropes, are listed just because one person decided to add that in. One person! Talk about unscientific! And here they asked \'\'over two hundred and fifty\'\' of them. If you\'re familiar with statistics (and I suspect you are), you\'d know that credibility gains are not linear. Just imagine for a minute that in truth, every example is prefaced by an invisible \
to:
I get what you\\\'re saying about the poll being unscientific. If anybody tried to present it to me within the terms of a scientific paper I would laugh in their face. I just don\\\'t feel we should be holding anything to these standards around here. Consider that virtually all examples in TVTropes, including subjective tropes, are listed just because one person decided to add that in. One person! Talk about unscientific! And here they asked \\\'\\\'over two hundred and fifty\\\'\\\' of them. If you\\\'re familiar with statistics (and I suspect you are), you\\\'d know that credibility gains are not linear. Just imagine for a minute that in truth, every example in here is prefaced by an invisible \\\"ThisTroper thinks that...\\\". Any remotely decent poll compares \\\'\\\'mightily\\\'\\\' fine to that.
I believe you can have something that\\\'s not a shining beacon of research methodology but still has a point. The supposed sources of bias (Fans of one faction are more likely to answer polls? To go online? To flock to this specific website?) are purely theoretical and we have no reason to suspect they are true, as far as I can see. Again, that\\\'s not good enough in general, but I think it\\\'s good enough for here.
Why? Well, IMO when listing an example for a subjective trope we should take all the justification we can get (and this is about as good as it\\\'s going to get; nobody is going to conduct a rigorous investigation of nigh \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' mentioned in this website, ever). Decent justification is what staves off the inevitable \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" justifying edit and/or blanking with \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" edit summary and/or natter and/or obligatory YMMV stamp that waters down discussion until nothing is an example of everything, and you end up having to do an ExampleSectionectomy like in the {{Shipping}} article. But again, I see your point and I\\\'m fine with things as they are as long as we don\\\'t find ourselves slipping down that aforementioned slippery slope.
I believe you can have something that\\\'s not a shining beacon of research methodology but still has a point. The supposed sources of bias (Fans of one faction are more likely to answer polls? To go online? To flock to this specific website?) are purely theoretical and we have no reason to suspect they are true, as far as I can see. Again, that\\\'s not good enough in general, but I think it\\\'s good enough for here.
Why? Well, IMO when listing an example for a subjective trope we should take all the justification we can get (and this is about as good as it\\\'s going to get; nobody is going to conduct a rigorous investigation of nigh \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' mentioned in this website, ever). Decent justification is what staves off the inevitable \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" justifying edit and/or blanking with \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" edit summary and/or natter and/or obligatory YMMV stamp that waters down discussion until nothing is an example of everything, and you end up having to do an ExampleSectionectomy like in the {{Shipping}} article. But again, I see your point and I\\\'m fine with things as they are as long as we don\\\'t find ourselves slipping down that aforementioned slippery slope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I get what you\'re saying about the poll being unscientific. If anybody tried to present it to me within the terms of a scientific paper I would laugh in their face. I just don\'t feel we should be holding anything to these standards around here. Consider that virtually all examples in TVTropes, including subjective tropes, are listed just because one person decided to add that in. One person! Talk about unscientific! And here they asked \'\'over two hundred and fifty\'\' of them. If you\'re familiar with statistics (and I suspect you are), you\'d know that credibility gains are not linear. For all its faults, such a poll is in a whole different ball park. Whatever qualms one might have with the poll apply directly, and \'\'much\'\' more strongly, to the one person who would be adding the example to begin with.
to:
I get what you\\\'re saying about the poll being unscientific. If anybody tried to present it to me within the terms of a scientific paper I would laugh in their face. I just don\\\'t feel we should be holding anything to these standards around here. Consider that virtually all examples in TVTropes, including subjective tropes, are listed just because one person decided to add that in. One person! Talk about unscientific! And here they asked \\\'\\\'over two hundred and fifty\\\'\\\' of them. If you\\\'re familiar with statistics (and I suspect you are), you\\\'d know that credibility gains are not linear. Just imagine for a minute that in truth, every example is prefaced by an invisible \\\"ThisTroper thinks that...\\\". For all its faults, such a poll is in a whole different ball park of factual support.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Now I agree that as you said this is subject to all sorts of bias and noise. Intuitively, though, the average person would find a 20%-80% split on what is AFAIK the \
to:
Now I agree that as you said this is subject to all sorts of bias and noise. Intuitively, though, the average person would find a 20%-80% split on what is AFAIK the \\\"main\\\" online gathering place of western fandom (I\\\'ve searched for \\\'\\\'any\\\'\\\' other one with no success) compelling. I guess this is because there\\\'s a sliding scale of credibility between \\\"I once asked in the official pro-banana chat room whether bananas are tasty and 100% of all three people present answered yes\\\" and a poll like you describe, with strict adherence to the scientific method. You can have something that\\\'s not a shining beacon of research methodology but still has a point. The supposed sources of bias (Fans of one faction are more likely to answer polls? To go online? To flock to this specific website?) are purely theoretical and we have no reason to suspect they are true, as far as I can see. Again, that\\\'s not good enough in general, but I think it\\\'s good enough for here.
Why? Well, IMO when listing an example for a subjective trope we should take all the justification we can get (and this is about as good as it\\\'s going to get; nobody is going to conduct a rigorous investigation of nigh \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' mentioned in this website, ever). Decent justification is what staves off the inevitable \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" justifying edit and/or blanking with \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" edit summary and/or natter and/or obligatory YMMV stamp that waters down discussion until nothing is an example of everything, and you end up having to do an ExampleSectionectomy like in the {{Shipping}} article. But again, I see your point and I\\\'m fine with things as they are as long as we don\\\'t find ourselves slipping down that aforementioned slippery slope.
Why? Well, IMO when listing an example for a subjective trope we should take all the justification we can get (and this is about as good as it\\\'s going to get; nobody is going to conduct a rigorous investigation of nigh \\\'\\\'anything\\\'\\\' mentioned in this website, ever). Decent justification is what staves off the inevitable \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" justifying edit and/or blanking with \\\"lol i beg to differ\\\" edit summary and/or natter and/or obligatory YMMV stamp that waters down discussion until nothing is an example of everything, and you end up having to do an ExampleSectionectomy like in the {{Shipping}} article. But again, I see your point and I\\\'m fine with things as they are as long as we don\\\'t find ourselves slipping down that aforementioned slippery slope.
