Re: VB or C?

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance


"Tom Leylan" <tleylan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23ZO1lQyeHHA.3548@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scott M." <s-mar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23wkv29weHHA.2388@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But Tom, my friend, please see inline and remember that I'm not in a
condition that I need to relax from. I'm simply making a point (to which
you seem more receptive of than earlier.

I think you must have me confused with somebody else :-) The reason I
hang around the VB.Net group answering VB.Net questions isn't because I
don't use it...

Not sure what you are referring to here.


Yes, I do "know" that Coke/Pepsi are the largest non-alcoholic carbinated
beverages. But I know this because of the consitent results of the
reliable market research in "Nation's Restaurant News" (in another life I
was a full-service restaurant manager and then a restaurant consultant).
As a consultant, we would do local market research and look at the market
research of other reputable sources.

Which other reputable sources?

Here are some of the common sources:

Local and US Chambers of Commerce.
Local and US restaurant & hospitality associations
Trade publications (ie. Nation's Restaurant News).
Hire a market research company to perform statistical analysis.

What makes them reputable?

They are recognized (industry-wide) as reputable and reliable and they are
usually the only ones that do the kind of research required.

Just because you post the words "reputable" doesn't make the reputable.
See how easy it is?

Well, I've answered your questions, so I would say that if you have the
facts to back up a statement, it is pretty easy. All I've gotten from Arne
is opinion stated as fact with no simple and clear answers to the questions
I've provided.

I have two problems with your link:
1. It takes me to a page which states that no result could be found
for your search.
2. Wikipedia is hardly the definitive word on anything since no one
is paid to check accuracy unless something is challeged.
You show me ANY entry at Wiki and 10 minutes later, I'll show you
some new *facts* at the same URL. So, I would hardly use anything from
Wiki as definitive proof of anything.

I cut and pasted the link, perhaps the conversion to ASCII introduced a
problem. Here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29 .

Your opinion on the accuracy of Wikipedia seems to be an unsubstantiated
opinion as formal studies have concluded the opposite. Follow the links
(these should work) and you'll notice that studies using reputable
samplings have demonstrated it is nearly as accurate as the Encylopedia
Britannica. You don't accept a search of 3, 4 or 5 large job sites about
job statistics but guessing is acceptable when it comes to Wikipedia.
Note who claims the test is flawed in the BBC report, the Encylopedia
Britannica, who would have guessed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

This is the only thing Aren has provided as proof. I accept it and I
conceed that point.


If 99% of the development jobs are going to VB.Net developers but they
aren't visible in the public landscape they are by definition
"invisible". It might be that Eiffel.Net or COBOL.Net has twice as many
jobs as VB.Net in that case right? Lack of public access to the data is
a problem but what are you hoping that people will do in that case, fund
studies?

Uh, yes? And, I would *guess* that you could ask several professionals
who are paid (by a neutral party), say Human Resource (national
head-hunters) personnel and aggregate their results to get a national
statistic on the matter. But that is hardly what we have been given for
this 3:1 statistic.

Do you seriously think anybody posting here is going to fund a study?

No, but (for the last time as apparently no one wants to read my simple
point), don't presents facts as definitive, it they aren't. I never said
someone should fund a study for a newsgroup post, that was not the question,
nor was that my reply. Many studies are funded every day, by people that
want to know a reliable statistcial result.

Would you if I claimed your opinion on Wikipedia was unfounded? I'm going
to guess not.

You guessed wrong.

Can you post a link to Human Resource? I found HR.com but that doesn't
look like the one you're talking about.

I wasn't talking about any web site. I was talking about HR firms, such as
head-hunters. My point was they are not considered in any of the "research"
provided by anyone, which make the research incomplete and its data suspect
at best.

Perhaps somebody near one of their offices will phone and post the facts.
Something tells me you'll dismiss the numbers with "sure one phone call
but what about the other offices" if things don't go your way.

Nope, I'd say that until we got the other sources of data as well
(newspaper, etc.) and enough of each to provide a good sampling of data.


Great, but that's not what what people have said (AFAICS). They've
listed a few online job sites and actually then said that 3 sites polled
is enough to make a definitive statement about a national/international
trend. They haven't said "I only checked 3 out of thousands of sites,
but here's what I've found."

Yes it is. The messages started up much like your opinion about
Wikipedia. When challenged it evolved to various ad-hoc queries which
brought us to the present "as far as I can tell" status. Unlike your
Wikipedia opinion which remains in the "I just made this up" category.

Not really. Directly after Arne posted his ill-gotten statistic, I
challenge it and his response was that looking at 3 sites out of thousands
and not at any other non-web site data was enough to justify his statistic
as correct. That's what I've been debating ever since.

If you are trying to suggest that the 1000 job sites all have unique
listings it won't sell. If you are suggesting that a job board with 35
jobs on it (the newest one posted 90 days ago) should be considered the
equal of Monster or Dice the CEO's of those companies would like to chat
with you. And it wouldn't be hard to imagine that "VBJobs.com" might have
more VB jobs posted.

When did I suggest anything of the sort? If anything, I've said the exact
opposite of that.


The posting as I recall consisted of the results of a search on a few
large sites. It wasn't suggested that there were no VB jobs, we know that
isn't true. You're in essence trying to imply that posting "Coke sells
1.3 billion beverages a day" is akin to writing "nobody likes ginger ale."

Again, that's not what I said in any way, shape or form.


It would be incumbent upon the VB.Net developers to point out _not_ that
the "flawed study" has flaws (so does any VB.Net job study) but rather
to point to results which suggest otherwise when using any other
accepted criteria.

Why? I'm not the one making broad claims that are not believeable. I'm
not presenting any statisics or findings at all. I'm simply questioning
what has been presented here. That doesn't shif any burden of proof back
to me, because I've made no statements to have to prove.

You do if you care. You may as well chat about the the faked moon
landing, Bigfoot and the Bermuda triangle. The contention that none of
these things is true should easily be countered by your challenge that we
have no proof they are fake. We can site 12 scientists and you can post
"what about the 10,000 other BigFoot sites"? Another successful
challenge. If you "care" then you should offer some counter fact, if
you're just debating what are you hoping to accomplish?

Because I'm not debating the statements being made and I've made no
statement of fact on the whole language question. I'm questioning the
methods of the data gathering. If you say something, the burden of proof is
on you to be able to back it up. I felt I backed up my Wiki statement, but
you have proved my wrong and I accept that. No one, though, challenged by
on the Wiki statement to go and prove it. If they did, I would/should be
the one to do the research, not you.


Again let me point out that nobody is stating that "you ought to learn C#
because there are no VB.Net jobs" because "when 3 large job sites were
searched here are the results". Let me ask you a question? If it is
easy, like a phone call to Human Resources or a search of one of the many
other job sites why haven't you simply posted your results? You have to
admit you could have done that in the time it took to write your response.

Well, first it's not as easy as you imply I said (which I didn't). If
anything I've said that it is much harder that a quick phone call and a
quick Google search. But again, I'm not making the claims here, so the
burden of proof isn't mine.


So why? Perhaps in part because it looks like you're just playing the
devil's advocate. People who aren't tend to post "well I checked the
following 2 sites and they are 3 to 1 in favor of VB.Net jobs." Which
would lead credence to the theory that the original numbers are flawed...
what we have now is your guess that the trend won't hold.

No, again you are mis-reading (or not reading) what I've said. What we have
is my doubtfullness of the supposition based on the limited data sources
used and in the non-scientific (and incorrect) statistical analysis made.


I think it is incumbant upon *anyone*, regardless of what language they
use or like to provide credible proofs when presenting a supposed fact.

You're in the minority :-)

Huh? You're saying that depending on what side of the issue someone falls,
only one group is responsible for providing credible proofs to back up their
statements? You can't be saying that, that's ridiculous.


Again, this is not the point. Let me clarify (again) what I take issue
with: It's not the source, per se, it's the way the "results" are
presented. If all you had time to do was an un-scientific Google search,
fine, no problem. But don't tell me that it was a comprehensive search
and represents a true, relaible statistic. As I said before, you may be
right, but don't claim you are right and prove it with flimsy
observations. Say "I only had time to do an un-scientific Google
search, but here's what it showed.", then let the reader make any
conclusions they want.

That's what happened.

But that is not what I'm debating. I'm talking about the way the
conclusion is "packaged".

Packaging is what it is about. Take for instance your remark about
Wikipedia. Seriously were you trying to dismiss it as a source of
information or were you trying to enlighten readers about potential
distortions? Had the quote come from the Encyclopedia Britannica would
you have dismissed it as readily without having read any of the studies?

I've already conceeded I was wrong about the particular Wiki topics that
study looked at. And your continued suggestion that I will only believe the
*facts* I like is unwarrented. Arne has provided no facts to support his
3:1. That's all I'm looking for. I've said over and over that he may be
right, just show me how you support your conclusion and do it with an
accepted method for coming up with a valid statistic in this matter. He
never considered other sites (so he does not have enough web site data to
form a reliable sample and he has not used any other source of data (which
leaves out huge data pools).


You were packaging your answer for maximum impact. I said "Wikipedia" you
countered with "unbelievable source" despite what experts have said.
Incredibly the article was about what constitutes a statistically relevant
sample hardly a controversial subject. Perhaps I can point you to their
definition of PI and you could suggest it's all bogus and made up by
people with an ax to grind :-)

Ok, so you've got me on Wiki. I think we can let that one go and address
the many other points I've made. But, again, you are making suggestions
about how I would react to hypothetical situations and, quite frankly, I've
given you no reason to think I'm biased about what a proper study would
find.

By the way, does the article on Wiki say that determining a statistically
relevant sample "hardly a controversial subject"? I don't think it does. In
fact, it has quite a bit to say about going about getting a good sample
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_method). I'm afraid Arne hasn't come
close to following this methodology.


Yep, but I would not make the mistake of characterizing such a small pool
of information as a good source to determine a trend. Arne has pretty
much done exactly that.

The trend is "3 sites checked 3 sites confirming". If 2 more large sites
are checked and the results are the same then it would be 5 for 5.

No, it would be 5 for 5 sites, not including all the other sources in the
"sample frame". And, as pointed out on your Wiki, if you don't have a
relevant sample frame, your analysis is not relevant.

The trend would be for every large site checked the numbers remained the
same. That of course doesn't mean there isn't a large site with all the
VB.Net jobs but that could remain undiscovered even if 2 dozen large sites
were checked.

You are making this way more compicated than it needs to be. A 3:1
statistic was offered as a valid value for C# to VB.NET jobs currently
available. An insufficient sample was used to get this and the presenter of
this information will not conceed this point nor will he change the way in
which his result was presented. That's the bottom line.

Show me a result from a good sample or change the way you package your
result. Until you do that, your stats. are meaningless. That's all I'm
saying.


As people have more time perhaps they will check some sites and post the
results here as well.

Yes. And maybe they'll look not just at sites, since if that's all they
did, we'd still not have a good sample.


Tom





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VB or C?
    ... factual statistics. ... Experience that the same jobs get posted at multiple sites. ... You are being absurd. ... hear you rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: VB or C?
    ... I am sure that the OP is not asking about jobs, he is asking if there are ... so-called factual statistics. ... You are being absurd. ... to hear you rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: VB or C?
    ... I am sure that the OP is not asking about jobs, he is asking if there are ... factual statistics. ... You are being absurd. ... to hear you rationally dispute that with any *facts* you have on it. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Butler trade
    ... >>> I repeat, statistics disagree with you. ... Over NINE games he's shooting 36.7%. ... I'll type the facts over and over so even slow learners ... You don't even know Lakers ran the triangle in the SPL. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)