More than 2,000 people have signed up to be “fans” of the CBC page on Facebook. As more and more people add the page to their profiles, their friends see it and add it as well, leading to exponential growth, especially in the last few days. Here’s some statpr0n:
One of the things I think is really neat is it’s now relatively simple to conduct a large-scale focus group on topics relating to the CBC. Considering a 12-person panel from a research company costs thousands of dollars, getting access to 2,000 people (granted, not with the statistical assurances) for free is pretty darned good.
|
Email This Post |
| CBC Widgets |
I’m wincing at what Audience Research would have to say about that last statement. Never mind statistical certainty, you could never get anything like an unbiased sample from a group of self-described "fans", though I suppose it’d be nice to only hear good things about one’s work for a change.
I think he meant ’statporn’ rather than statpron
@kev: Indeed — a self-selecting sample isn’t at all statistically relevant. As I said.
@swiv: Nope, I meant pr0n. See this. Old geek habits die hard I guess.
When I blogged about the launch of the new local CBC Vancouver site on Tuesday I took a screenshot of the CBC fan site on Facebook and there were 1722 fans . I just checked and it’s at almost 2400.
If it’s “exponential” growth, what is the exponent of <i>e</i>?
The numbers show an increase of 94 people in a day. Surely this is a little more than a rounding error.
@joe I meant that the rate of growth is increasing, as on a scale. I probably didn’t use "exponentially" correctly. This is why I’m a radio producer, not a mathematician!
What’s being accomplished here?
It seems like a meaningless trivial pursuit. Pursuing numbers for their own sake with no import and nothing to ever come of it.
I’d say that focusing on these uses and approaches to the web is exponentially absurd an dull.
so would love to see how many CBC employees are on the CBC facebook site.