<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hit and Run Research</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/</link>
	<description>Moving from a Low Accountability to a High Accountability Business Model</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:26:16 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim Novo</title>
		<link>http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/comment-page-1/#comment-4968</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Novo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/#comment-4968</guid>
		<description>OK, see:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/10/research-for-press/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Research for Press Release&lt;/a&gt;

 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, see:</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/10/research-for-press/" target="_blank">Research for Press Release</a></p>
<p> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric T. Peterson</title>
		<link>http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/comment-page-1/#comment-4561</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric T. Peterson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/#comment-4561</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I hear ya.  But I don&#039;t see why it&#039;s not a topic worth discussing. I think people make assumptions all the time without thinking about A) why they&#039;re assuming and B) the ramifications of said assumptions.

Don&#039;t get me wrong, I&#039;ll torture data all night long if need be, but I&#039;d love to read your insights.  That said, don&#039;t write it for me ... write it for you.

Your avid fan,

E.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I hear ya.  But I don&#8217;t see why it&#8217;s not a topic worth discussing. I think people make assumptions all the time without thinking about A) why they&#8217;re assuming and B) the ramifications of said assumptions.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I&#8217;ll torture data all night long if need be, but I&#8217;d love to read your insights.  That said, don&#8217;t write it for me &#8230; write it for you.</p>
<p>Your avid fan,</p>
<p>E.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Novo</title>
		<link>http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/comment-page-1/#comment-4559</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Novo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/#comment-4559</guid>
		<description>I scrapped it because I&#039;m not sure people care, it seems to be taken for granted lately that &quot;survey = truth&quot;, so I&#039;m just testing the waters to see if people are interested in the topic.

I wasn&#039;t thinking of web analytics in this regard, where I assume people have a bit of rigor; as you pointed out, you publish background.

More so, I was thinking about the river of social media-related stuff that is pounded out day after day, with what seems to be little rigor in the methodology and damn little fact-checking by &quot;reporters&quot;, even when the facts are right there available to check...

So that’s why I wonder if people care at all about this kind of topic…maybe it’s just a product of being able to say whatever you want whenever you want, then it gets picked up and syndicated all over the world, and then it becomes a fact. 

But Hype is one thing, that&#039;s OK with me.  Outright distortion or torturing of the survey data is quite another, in my opinion.

So, have people already caught on to the fact a lot of this survey stuff is being classified as puffery, thus evading any legal issues about &quot;facts&quot;?

If so, topic not worth discussin&#039;...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I scrapped it because I&#8217;m not sure people care, it seems to be taken for granted lately that &#8220;survey = truth&#8221;, so I&#8217;m just testing the waters to see if people are interested in the topic.</p>
<p>I wasn&#8217;t thinking of web analytics in this regard, where I assume people have a bit of rigor; as you pointed out, you publish background.</p>
<p>More so, I was thinking about the river of social media-related stuff that is pounded out day after day, with what seems to be little rigor in the methodology and damn little fact-checking by &#8220;reporters&#8221;, even when the facts are right there available to check&#8230;</p>
<p>So that’s why I wonder if people care at all about this kind of topic…maybe it’s just a product of being able to say whatever you want whenever you want, then it gets picked up and syndicated all over the world, and then it becomes a fact. </p>
<p>But Hype is one thing, that&#8217;s OK with me.  Outright distortion or torturing of the survey data is quite another, in my opinion.</p>
<p>So, have people already caught on to the fact a lot of this survey stuff is being classified as puffery, thus evading any legal issues about &#8220;facts&#8221;?</p>
<p>If so, topic not worth discussin&#8217;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric T. Peterson</title>
		<link>http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/comment-page-1/#comment-4554</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric T. Peterson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/08/07/hit-and-run-research/#comment-4554</guid>
		<description>Jim,

Interesting post.  How come you scrapped the longer post?  I would venture that few people are actually &quot;hip to the topic&quot; but I have to agree with your assessment of poor methodology statements.  This is why Zori and I include a methodology in our research (which I kind of doubt anyone reads, but it&#039;s there, and Zori&#039;s email address is in the work as well for people who have questions about the methodology, etc.)

Anyway, I think we&#039;d all benefit from your thoughts on the subject.  Oh, unless you&#039;re going to use me as a strawman to beat to death, in which case I love the short, non-specific post.  ;-)

Eric T. Peterson
http://www.webanalyticsdemystified.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim,</p>
<p>Interesting post.  How come you scrapped the longer post?  I would venture that few people are actually &#8220;hip to the topic&#8221; but I have to agree with your assessment of poor methodology statements.  This is why Zori and I include a methodology in our research (which I kind of doubt anyone reads, but it&#8217;s there, and Zori&#8217;s email address is in the work as well for people who have questions about the methodology, etc.)</p>
<p>Anyway, I think we&#8217;d all benefit from your thoughts on the subject.  Oh, unless you&#8217;re going to use me as a strawman to beat to death, in which case I love the short, non-specific post.  ;-)</p>
<p>Eric T. Peterson<br />
<a href="http://www.webanalyticsdemystified.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.webanalyticsdemystified.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
