More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.
Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?
I can tell you're sincere, Dilbert, but apparently you've never taken a class in statistics, even a basic one. The word "bias" in this case is not an accusation against Flickr, it's a potential flaw in the data
. I'm not saying at all that Flickr may be biased, I'm saying the data may be biased in a way that prevents us from drawing certain conclusions
. Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion, it's a statistical assertion. I'll let you read the Wikipedia article
And let me pose some questions for you...
- how would flickr introduce bias? I'm not saying they're introducing it, I'm saying they don't have enough data to eliminate pre-existing bias in their data.
- what does flickr have to benefit from bias? Again, I'm not saying it's intentional, I'm saying it's unavoidable due to the data they have.
- what outcome would flickr see as a result of it being biased? Actually, I don't think they were trying to be biased: they were very clear about what they were trying to do and how they did it. I simply believe there is insufficient data to go beyond what they've done to draw any conclusions about what future cameras purchases people are likely to make.
Answers to the above are in-line in blue.
In summary, Dilbert, Flickr's data can lead to a valid conclusion
summarized as: "among all Flickr account holders who keep metadata in their images, the prevalence of cameras is given in the chart below..."
What they did NOT say, and which would NOT be true, is that they can extrapolate that to the entire camera-buying community to infer what kinds of cameras people would like to buy.