[–] frankenglock 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Mathmagicians. Like theoretical astrophysicists, just keep changing the equations until you get the numbers you want.
I see no problem here as long the number is solely used for ranking the topics, as they did. The problem begins when "journalists" use these numbers without explanation. The "net satisfied" number is used to rank topics higher than they would do when just the satisfaction numbers count, in cases where many people are undecided.
[–] Flying_Gabriel99 [S] ago
Not only is the term "net satisfied" a total misrepresentation but the figure itself is no longer a fraction of 100 ie; "per cent" meaning per 100.
It's a trick of both language and mathematics producing a bogus result which is as you say - ripened fruit for journalistic misrepresentation - offered to them on a silver platter.
A ranking can be easily assigned (even using the same equation) if they so choose ... without describing it as a "net satisfaction" percentage - which it's not.
The satisfied and unsatisfied percentages don’t have to add to 100 because of “not sure” answers - in fact they only do for a few rows, one of which is the one you’re looking at.
If Gallup didn’t calculate the net satisfied the way they did, some of the results would be very misleading. For example “The nation’s energy policies” and “Our system of government and how well it works” are at 44% and 43% satisfied, which makes them look really close. But the “net satisfied” numbers are +3 and -14, telling us that a lot more people see a problem with one than the other.
[–] JJS1 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
New Math?