Talk:Q Score/Archives/2012

not true

I'm removing the statement "Two factors influence the Q Score: the number of people who are aware of the product in question, and the number of people who claim that product as one of their favorites" because it is not true -- look at http://www.qscores.com/performer_samplea.html and run a correlation or whatever -- it is clear that they use more data than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kstinch (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

No mention of the scoring system ?!

it doesent say how the system rates, like one to ten or 1 to a hundred or like a positive negative scale?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.213.243 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanation and debate over scoring system ?!

cleaned up and added deleted content that showed methodology and answered sinebot's questions. The debate and discussion is best one I have seen and explains in detail how the system works and the debate over its usefulness.

75.74.42.50 (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)SHOWMETHE$$$

For illustrative purposes, we’ve prepared this scenario for you.

Shouldnt this be in quotation marks like the paragraphs above and below? And who is actually saying this and the paragraphs in quotation marks? Wouldnt it be better to indent the quoted sections and give the source of this very long quotations? I assume it complies with copyright concerns, fair use, etc. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Error in example under "Q Score Methodology Debate"

There is a mistake in the example under "Q Score Methodology Debate". The next-to-last sentence of the example should read: "Furthermore, since Celebrity Two was only known by 5% of the total population, and the total sample size for Q ratings is around 1000, only 50 respondents would actually be aware of Celebrity Two." This change would also have some effect in the final sentence, possibly changing the asserted uselessness of the sample size in drawing conclusions. It's possible the example should be rewritten. A person with knowledge of statistical confidence levels should look at this.Caldust55 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole section's been removed.--Aervanath (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

IBM example

An important detail has been left out of the IBM example. The study that IBM commissioned was based on Internet Users, not the general public (per the link). It seems likely that internet users in the year 2000 are more likely to have been computer literate and chess players, and more likely to view the RS/6000 computers favorably than the general public. Can we find a better example, or at least frame the survey in its proper context?15:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.85.3 (talk)

Actually, it doesn't outright say it was only internet users; it says internet users were "part of the study".--Aervanath (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)