hahahahahahahaha well consider me fail

It's not fail if you end up doing it to go "yeah, this guys' testing. What else has he put up so I can lick that too!" take that numbers!!!

I read the comment first and knew what I was doing. So do I pass or fail?

These tease-and-they-will-come "tests" are pretty skewed from a statistical viewpoint. F'instance' I'm here from your user page, to read comments, having previewed the thumb from there. Unless you can distinguish between entry-points, the data count is pretty useless- unless you've working from a pre-determined result and just looking for "proof" in a rigged manner.

Sometimes, it's just curiosity and 'what is he doing now?*' Just something to think about.


*And sometimes it's looking for keen porn, but using a hit count is a poor gauge for that.

I only counted hits from when they were on the front page, and they were on the front page for about five minutes.

Yeah, but how many total people saw the "samples" during that period? What time of day was it and does that affect viewing habits of the population at large? What was the site's traffic load and how does it change over time of day? Without those figures, and others like them, you can make no meaningful conclusions concerning results. You don't even know the totals for the sample population. The only verifiable concluision you can draw from this is, "during this period, these particulat files received these many hits." The rest is guesswork and speculation.

I"m not a statistician, but I've done QC and know what's needed information-wise for theses sorts of tests. This one ain't valid.

Well, it was never meant as serious research. It was really more for fun since I was bored to death.

Besides that, it doesn't require research and small experiments like mine (valid or not) to know that porn is what keeps the Furry Fandom alive. We furs are perverts.

Before I forget: don't think I'm being sarcastic or in anyway unkind about this. I'm just getting in my quota of being pedantic and you're the lucky recipient. It's mostly in reaction to seeing many of these sorts of statistically broken surveys bruited about as absolute proof of one thing or another here, as well as seeing too many incredibly biased so-called surveys with cut-to-fit answers designed to agree with some preconceived opinion.

Consider this a reminder that mere head-counts don't qualify as in-depth statistical analysis and as something to consider before reaching any sort of conclusion. While it's true that there are lies, damned lies and then there's statistics, you best do the statistics as correctly as you can if you're going treat the results as valid supporting evidence and to base decisions on them, even if only for yourself.