...The iphone is certainly represented in this random sample...
Let's try this again. This is NOT a random sample and it does not claim to be.
You can write that 100 times and it will be wrong every time if you are talking about statistics. This is not about your everyday random where anything deliberate is non-random. Its about whether the sampling is relevant or not - and this is certainly not a sample that will say anything at all
about the most popular camera on the web.
Thus it is
a random sample because the methodology makes it random. Random is not a statistical abstract. This sample is random or non-random according to the claim that the numbers say something about the most popular camera on the web (the sites heading).
To spell it out: Its random in at least two statistical dimensions: 1) the selection of web sites do not representative of pictures posted on the web making it random to the finding the web's most popular cameras (which is the relevant measure here according to the site) and
2) the methodology does not take into account the presence/availability of some/all/correct exif.
And to top off we can put the sample to a simple practical test: are the results believable/close/accurate or anything like this when it comes to the claim we are being presented stats of the web's most popular camera - no.
Its so far off its laughable to even sit here and start arguing with someone that this is a representative sampling of the web's most popular camera. It is patently clear that it is not. The unweighted/corrected selection of sites and unweighted/uncorrected use of exif data and pictures with exif data determines this.
Yeah stats can be fun, but these do not - and cannot - support any legitimate claims about the web's most popular cameras (or their settings for that matter).