[FlyingSnake]

>They ended up with a final sample size of 813 people.

I want BlueSky to succeed but this sampling bias is simply too much to ignore.

This comment (by nunobrito) from few days ago on a similar topic is best analysis of this topic.

> These news are awfully similar to click-bait stating "the science is settled" by grouping a small set of the group and then pretending it represents the whole. The paper failed both to identify the overall number of scientists using X or the cases where multiple platforms are used (most common scenario). Therefore the paper only seems biased on its best scenario or downright propaganda at its worst. > NOSTR and Mastodon should never be left out of any serious research.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44982510

[rsynnott]

If the poll was done _properly_, that sample size is _fine_; there’ll be a decent margin of error, but not as much as you might expect. 1k people is a fairly standard size for polls, with even very high quality ones rarely doing over a few thousand.

The real consideration was whether the poll was done properly.

[epistasis]

What is the sampling bias? You dont explain what it could be, and your quote doesn't give any clues about what the bias could be.

[FlyingSnake]

The article itself talks about this self-selection/sampling bias due to a minuscule sample size of 813 people. Reducing “science community” to such a small sample is not convincing.

[epistasis]

Self-selections, sure, that's a risk with any and all surveys and questionnaires, which must be mentioned.

But 813? Why wouldn't that be enough? Basic stats puts that at a very healthy number for most questions, and the researchers don't raise any questions about bias about the number.

[pessimizer]

> The paper failed both to identify the overall number of scientists using X or the cases where multiple platforms are used (most common scenario)

[epistasis]

That would not indicate bias. It's merely beyond the reach of what was in the study.