Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
So you assume Frank is attempting to mislead us by cherry-picking the statistics he shares? Do you have some evidence for this, or is it based on personal bias and a very vocal few on CD?
|
I think it is a reasonable assumption that anyone who presents you with data is trying to sell you a particular version of a story. The contrast between Frank's wording and IndySam's explanation of the same chart is a great example of how two people can read very different things from the same data!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IndySam
What I see in this blog post is a 40% reduction of very good ratings and a 400% increase of very poor ratings.
I don't think this is something to brag about.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
1.2 % of respondents rated the game ‘Very Poor’, while 34.8% of respondents rated the game ‘Very Good’. As a point of comparison with last year’s game Ultimate Ascent, arguably one of our most popular in recent history, 91.3% rated the game positively over all weeks of the regular competition season, with 48.7% rating it ‘Very Good’, while 1.7% rated the game negatively, with 0.3% rating it ‘Very Poor’. (Yes, even for Ultimate Ascent, we had a handful of survey respondents who strongly disliked the game).
...
We’d love for every game to achieve Ultimate Ascent-like popularity, and we did not reach that level this year.
|
My reading of the data is that a significant portion of the people who respond to optional surveys in FIRST e-mail blasts think that both Ultimate Ascent and Aerial Assist are good games. I would wager that these people would say the same thing of any FRC game, but I of course have no data to back this up.
Now that Travis has posted the link on CD, I expect the week 5 results will be different and no longer representative of people who respond to optional surveys in FIRST e-mail blasts.