Differing contributions is just fine. For example, WikiFur has many contributors. Some do their part by watching for vandalism on articles, while others concentrate more on writing original work, or improving existing articles, or helping others. All these things are valued, just as a fursuiter or an artist is valuable to the furry community in a different way to any of these WikiFur contributors.

However, the people who just drop in to see the occasional article really aren’t contributing anything, or even using it all that much. Their investment in time and effort is less, not just different. That doesn’t make them bad people, but I think it makes them less representative of furry fandom. I talked a little bit about this on Wikipedia.

Agreeing to disagree is fine with me, though. If we were all in agreement all the time, there wouldn’t really be much of a point in surveys. Maybe we can chat more about it at Anthrocon over some milk and cookies. 🙂

I think you’re experiencing some confusion between a member’s representativeness of the community and the survey’s representativeness of its subject.

Additionally, rather than making a judgement that an individual is any less of a furry than any other individual, I see it the same way that people are Americans – a native soldier and a naturalized immigrant are both equally Americans, neither more or less than the other even though their contributions are different.

But I have exceeded my personal limit of three replies to the same person in one thread without coming to an agreement. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

My view is that regardless of whether or not they are “active”, it is a citizen’s responsibility to vote (and a person’s responsibility to participate in a survey) if they want to complain about the results. On that level, I think it’s a valid comparison. 🙂

If all members were equally representative of the community, then that suggests it doesn’t matter what members were surveyed, and so it’s no problem if it were mostly active members. I don’t actually think this is the case – I think it does matter, and that the people who are more active should matter more when it comes to determining the question of “what is a furry fan?”, because they act proportionately more as a part of the community that is being surveyed.

I understand your wish to have every fur equally represented, but honestly, I don’t think that every fur is equal when it comes to a picture of what the fandom is actually like, because not all people are equally furry fans. And this is where a survey of a group diverges from a political vote, because here some people are more representative than others. If there are people who don’t go to cons, don’t participate socially, don’t get out there and interact . . . then they don’t really matter all that much when it comes to determining what the composition of the fandom is, because they’re not the ones actually taking part in it.

It’s like saying you’re part of the wiki community if you made an edit to Wikipedia once, or you’re a sci-fi fan if you bought Star Trek book or two. Technically, you might be correct, but such people probably wouldn’t be good subjects for surveys intended to capture the essence of wiki editors. Instead, it would dilute the distinctive character of the group that the survey was trying to measure in the first place.

Despite all the above, I will agree that it was not the best possible survey in the world. It was a student project, and most likely the people running it had limited experience, limited funds, and limited time. Still, I don’t think the results have been skewed all that much by the way it was taken, if only because the numbers are pretty much in line with other available indicators. Do they actually seem that skewed to you?

The results presented also suggest that the makeup of “active” and “inactive” fans isn’t all that different, at least in certain respects. For example, the ratio of fursuiters to non-suiters matches up with the actual numbers that you get at cons these days . . . despite the fact that less than half of those responding claimed to go to cons (that figure alone makes me question how much of an “active” bias there was).

Elections are not a valid comparison because they’re not a scientific poll that requires a representative sample. It is a citizen’s responsibility to vote, but it is a statistician’s responsibility to find willing participants that make up a valid, representative sample of the community as a whole.

This survey was of the furry community, not of the “alcoholics” of our community. That’s clear from the chart that includes participants who are only involved a few times a year. That same chart is the best illustration of the lack of balance in respondents.

As I previously stated, all members are equally representative of the community, no matter if they represent the active or inactive population. So I am not conflating members’ levels of activity with greater or lesser qualifications for representation.

If the statisticians desired to make a judgement about who is or isn’t representative or just wanted to measure a subset of the community, a set of basic criteria should have identified the representative members they desired to take the survey. Instead, the survey was open to anyone who came across it, and thus that was the sole criteria for being considered a representative of the community by the survey. The end result was unequal representation in the survey of more and less active members, with both parties considered equally representative of the community being surveyed.

If it were up to me, I would obtain an equal sample of each level of activity that was measured. Perhaps 100 members of each level of involvement. I would consider that much more representative.

I’m talking about the people that complain that the surveys don’t represent them, and yet don’t do anything constructive about it, like responding to surveys. I think that their right to complain are invalidated by that – it’s like saying that politicians don’t represent you and then not voting even though you had equal opportunity to do so. Indeed, I specifically encouraged people to take the survey based on this feeling of mis-perception. Statisticians also have no way of forcing such people to report to them. They can pay them but that just adds a different sort of bias (and it’s still towards people whose time is cheap, so you’d get students, only more of them now they could get easy money :-).

As for whether or not there actually is a statistical bias, it’s perfectly possible, but I think you are conflating “more active” with “fringe/unrepresentative” and I don’t see the basis for that. Indeed, I would have thought that the more involved with the furry fandom someone was, the less likely it is that they are “fringe”. Think of the people who best represent furry fandom to you. Are they these “fringe people”, or do they get out there, take part, and do things? Would they have taken this survey?

If the objective is to find out what a furry is, then someone who is actively furry seven days a week is at least as good as one who visits the VCL once a week – and probably more. After all, if you’re looking to find out what alcoholics think, you ask the alcoholics, not casual drinkers. And that was the actual thrust of the survey, though it’s not fully represented in the demographic results published. It was intended to find out members of the furry fandom’s perception of themselves and others. If you’re not that involved with the fandom, you probably aren’t a good representative of the group they’re trying to study.

Now, if people are fringe because they are uncomfortable with taking a more active involvement in the furry fandom . . . that suggests there is a mismatch between what “furry” actually is and what these people want it to be. That may well say something about the furry community, but it doesn’t make the fringe people more representative of it – it makes them less so, because they’re the ones that didn’t want to take a full part in the first place. It’s something worth studying, but since the objective of this survey was not find out the “is” as opposed to what people want it to be, then it seems accurate enough to risk losing out on some less-active participants.

We’re also talking 600 people here. It’s not the whole fandom by any means, but it’s a pretty large chunk, and they could easily have taken more if they felt it would have affected the statistics.

Well, I hope they don’t complain too hard about the results, because it’s partly their own damn fault if they’re wrong. 😉

No, it’s the statisticians responsibility to obtain a representative sample, not the respondents responsibility to provide one. The statisticians job is just harder with us because of our history with negative publicity.

It’s probably not a good survey of the “casual furs” who might surf VCL or FurAffinity once a week but who don’t go out and get involved with other fans. But if they’re not that active anyway . . . does it really matter that much that they’re not included?

Yes, it does. Statistical bias invalidates the survey. All members of the community, no matter how involved, have equal weight in a survey of the community as a whole. If those involved one day a week instead of seven are not equally represented, then the results are not representative of the group.

In fact, repeated publication of results skewed towards the more active and fringe side of the fandom can serve to drive away those who may have a casual interest.

Unfortunately they weren’t running a survey of indefinite length or size. The limit was 600 entries and they were surprised to reach it in four days. If they hadn’t closed it so fast, I’d have tried to push the net wider, though that would have risked people who weren’t furries finding out and filling it in en-mass as a joke.

There are a lot of furs who do not want to do this and they are not represented.

Well, I hope they don’t complain too hard about the results, because it’s partly their own damn fault if they’re wrong. 😉

I don’t think it’s that bad a survey of people who are socially active in the fandom. It’s probably not a good survey of the “casual furs” who might surf VCL or FurAffinity once a week but who don’t go out and get involved with other fans. But if they’re not that active anyway . . . does it really matter that much that they’re not included? Most of the media coverage is about active members, too, so at least they’ll match up.

I also suspect people taking the survey didn’t think all that much about how it would be associated with them (at least, not after I got them to remove the “what’s your furry name” question :-p). Most likely, they were just looking for something interesting to do for a half-hour. That’s what most online surveys in the furry fandom are for, after all. 🙂

Yeah, that’s a surprise to me as well. Of course, just looking at these results, it’s impossible to say there are “that many of us straight guys.” There’s nothing to indicate what fraction of the gay/bi population were female, for example. Judging by the numbers alone, it would be feasible that only 13% of the population consisted of “straight guys”. Though that would mean that every one of the women who responded to the survey (19%) were also straight. Which would be good news for us straight guys, eh? 😉

Ahem. I’m getting convoluted.

Anyway, what it does suggest is that the cross-section of friends I have in the fandom does not match the cross-section of the survey’s sample.

Every survey has its “issues”. To be scientific, the “conditions” must be pretty well defined, and in this case, although they did change a couple of times, they were: they documented where they advertised, how they advertised, and so on. The survey itself is a test document.

I don’t begrudge the survey’s doing. I would, however, like to see many more. The Furry Psyche fascinates me, for it’s one of the few communities I really identify with, however unidentifiable it may itself be. 😉

“SQUEEEEEE!!!!” Where do I sign up?

😉