Which other reputable sources?
So local and US Chambers of Commerce agree on the 3:1 ratio of C# to
VB.Net jobs? Don't you see you've just listed some names along with "take
a poll" so that's all that is required to claim anything.
You had asked what reputable sources I have used in restaurant marketing
studies I've worked on. I gave you my answer. I don't understand why you
are now asking what this has to do with computer languages. Are you saying
that anything I list is just a list, so it can't be substantiated?
My list is made up of hospitality recognized and respected sources that
cover many aspects of the hospitality industry (not just one segment and not
just a limited part of just one segment).
Actually the fact is that many studies are funded every day which are
found to conclude the opposite of studies funded weeks or months earlier
or studies based upon a slightly different wording of the questions or
intended to make a very slightly different point.
The most "used" vs. the most "popular" vs. the most "powerful" vs. the
"easiest".
I'm not sure what your point is here. A scientific study is better than no
study at all. Arne has not provided any meaningfull study. It doesn't
follow the prescribed steps for creating a reliable sample.
I guessed correctly. I asked "would you fund a study" and the answer is
no.
When I scroll up, I see your question was: " Do you seriously think anybody
posting here is going to fund a study?". I replied "No". You didn't ask if
I would fund a study.
Of course they are included in the "research" by virtue of the fact most
of the job postings at major job sites are posted by head-hunters. There
are postings every day on behalf of huge corporations by small companies
that place people at those huge corporations.
What amount is "most" of the job postings? Now, you've caught something from
Arne and doing exactly what you caught me doing with Wiki. This is really
just proving my point. The simple asnwer is, we just don't know with any
certanty what the ratio is.
You're thinking of jobs for the neighborhood coffee shop or entry level
work at the factory. There are no important newspaper listings for senior
level programmers in the newspaper.
So, you are now changing the original polling criteria? And, you are making
yet another assumption (about how many of a certain type of job will be
found where).
And again nobody said anything about ginger ale, getting a cold from
toast, using the newspaper help wanted ads as an indication of anything
except you.
I've used my ginger ale and cold/toast alaogies as a farcical way to show
that Arne's *probability problem* was nonsence. As for no one else talking
about newspapers, head hunters and in-house listings, that's exacly my
point. That's what's wrong with the supposed tren (first offered and then
stated as fact). Don't you see that as kind of walking around with blinders
on?
Don't you see both Arne and I looked it up rather than "challenge you"
because it was in everybody's best interest to put a stop to the matter.
We wanted to help rather than be challenging. Given your quest for proof
I think it's fair to say we were both surprised by how easily it was to
find evidence.
But don't you see that you and Arne were presenting the information, not me?
The burden of disproof is not on me. If you make the statement, you need to
be prepared to back it up. The fact that you went and provided proof of
your statement is exacly what you should do to prove your point. You did
and I was wrong.
Why would I say something like that? Clearly I'm saying that your belief
on the incumbancy of posters to provide credible proofs is the minority
opinion. Not a single other person has suggested (in any recent thread)
that "credible proofs" are missing. Most just say "thanks" and go on
their way.
But how many of those posts is a mistaken *fact* disputed. And since we are
not talking about which side of the VB.NET vs. C# fence (in this branch of
the thread) why would it matter? We're talking about someone providing
disputed facts. The dispute is not about the language, the dispute is about
the statistic. I've said all along that the C# backers may very well be
right.
The next time you answer a VB.Net question I'll be sure to ask you for
credible proofs and the results of a study.
If I present it as a definitive, undisputable fact, I'll be happy to provide
you with an MSDN link (can't get more authoritative the to hear it from the
horse's mouth). If I don't, I wouldn't expect you to accept it as anything
more than my opinion.
A major point isn't getting through... he is under no obligation to
provide any facts. He doesn't really care if you believe that he isn't
right or that you can point out the statistical flaw in his research.
What would he get out of it, your appreciation?
No, the point that's not getting through is that I don't care what Arne
thinks of me. The real fact here is that he is presenting an observation as
a fact and not providing anything to back it up. That's his right to do.
But something tells me that he does care, othewise why would he persist in
responding back and forth so much. I continue to respond, not for Arne's
sake, but to dispute his statement for others to read.
What about your toast/butter and cold example? Let me see if I can post
your statement to Arne verbatim:
"Now, you are saying that any data (however incomplete) is
statistacally significant? Ok, I once ate toast with butter and the
following day, I developed a cold. So, I think it is clear that toast
with
butter causes colds."
Did he give you a reason to suggest that would be reasonable? If on the
other hand he checked 3 very large job sites and of the people who
reported being sick 3 out of 4 had eaten a particular brand of butter I'd
say it might be a good idea to avoid it. Statistically valid or not the
number is too great to ignore and the odds of it being coincidence is very
low. It wouldn't warrant a product recall but it would behoove those
purchasing butter to reconsider despite a lack of information.
Sure, that's reasonable, but in your summary, you acknowledged that it is
not a *fact* that the butter was the culprit, it's just an informed
*opinion*. You were carefull about how you presented your feelings on the
matter. This is exactly what my point was with the Ginger Ale and toast
scenarios. It makes no sense to wrap an opinion (even an informed one) as a
fact.
It's not my Wiki but thanks for trying.
Well, it was *your* Wiki post, not mine.
We're on to your debate methods but I'm giving you a little more rope. Of
course it is relevant.
Not when you are conducting a scientific poll, it's not. You posted the
link, so obviously, you felt it was relavant. Are we or are we not talking
about a mechanism that yeilds an accurate result or not? By posting the
link, you indicate your feeling is "yes". As the article clearly states,
you need a reliable "sample frame" to get a reliable result. If you then
look at the definition of what a "sample frame" includes, it becomes
abundantly clear that Arne did not include enough on-line data and did not
look in any other potential areas where relevant data exists. It's NOT a
credible sample frame.
"All the other sites" include many totally irrelevant sources and few care
if a small job board in No. Carolina has a Java position at a local high
school. People are interested in trends not absolute numbers.
You are making an assumption that non online sources wouldn't have any
meaningful jobs and using that assumption as a basis for excluding a whole
segment of data. You know what they say about assumptions, right?
One doesn't learn a computer language or choose a career path based upon a
sample that includes small towns in Iowa unless one lives in a small town
in Iowa. They aren't the leading edge they are the trailing edge.
Failure to realize the direction software development is moving leaves one
in a support position as technology passes you by.
What if they live in a large city, like Los Angeles? Where did small-towns
come into the picture? I didn't introduce that. You are making another
assumption about the quality of non online job listings.
So, now we have, at least two, assumptions that have affeted your sample
frame. Garbage in ... garbage out.
What you posted were these words exactly... that is the bottom line in
point of fact.
Like perhaps he ought get busy and get those number to you. Here is a
clue, he isn't going to.
If he wants to present his flawed stat. as a fact, yes he does. But, no, he
won't. What he could have done is simple acknowledge his 3:1 is simply a
quick observation he made on some limited research he did? Would that have
been so hard to do, rather than persist that he has done a statistically
responsible poll and his stat. is a fact? That is the bottom line for me.
Right those newspaper ads for Senior Software Developers in Duluth, try
here:
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/classifieds/
Maybe there aren't many, but you are again missing the point, you won't know
unless you look, will you? And, I'd like to piont out that you are the only
person discussing the availabilty of Senior Software Developers. No one
(even Arne) said that this is what the stat. represents. Husan's original
message does not ask about Senior Software Developers.
So, again you are making another assumption, now that's, at least, three
that I count. Going back to the cited Wiki link as well as the first rule of
good polling, you must develop a specific question that you would like the
answer to before you can develop a reasonable sample frame. If you change
the objective of the poll AFTER the sample frame has been developed, you are
almost certain to get meaningless results. This is why professional
pollsters spen a lot of time and get paid huge amount of money, because the
know exactly how to phrase the question being asked of the respondant and
they know exactly how to build a reliable sample frame so they don't get
skewed data. They make very few assumptions if they can help it, as this
affects the margin of error of the poll. The less assumptions made and the
more specifc the question, the more reliable the results.
I will just end my involvement in this thready by saying that although we
disagree sharply on this, debating with you has remaind cordial and I
appreciate your not getting personal.
Good luck Tom!
