God, that was the least informative research project I've ever encountered. The premise of the research is something akin to: Based on recent news reports, where a whistleblower
revealed that tobacco farmers routinely fertilize
their crops with human brains, which then inadvertantly
leads to contamination of tobacco products, leaving all
smokers at risk of developing human prion related diseases,
we've conducted a study to see if this increased the
frequency of hits on the Phillip Morris website's
ingredients page. Our findings show that numbers only
increased by 0.00001%.
Gee, thanks.Nevermind questioning why anyone would look at the list of public ingredients, when the problem is contamination, which, by definition, means that unintended ingredients ruined the desired product. Why would a company list an accidental poison as part of its normal product? Why would Microsoft's privacy policy reveal any useful information about secret government programs? At no point in time have I ever met anyone who would have imagined that Microsoft's privacy policy would protect them from the NSA. It's almost like someone decided to study the things people DON'T do, after learning of some significant revelation. Like, hey let's conduct a study of how many people prefer to watch Family Feud over Price Is Right after being in a car accident! Oh, interesting! The difference is barely measurable! |