[nc-whois] Q 5 crunched & explained

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

herewith the Q 5 crunching results for now:


The sheet has no explanation, so I will do some here, if there are any
questions, feel free.

I started by changing the numeric award per answer into a more "readable"
important + neutral unimportant-
that led to 3 instead of 7 categories and allowed for grouping of the
answers without changing the outcome.

Now this in itself did not exactly lighten up the results, but made the data
more readable as I said.

Next I "removed" the "not stated" since they on average had 78% no answer
and recalibrating ( by only using the given answer and make the 22% = 100%)
did not do anything to the outcome at all.

furthermore the empty forms accounting for the 78% should imo never have
been entered in the equasion.

Now looking at the answers makes a lot more sense and one of the first thing
we learn is that ppl answer questions they are interested in and slide on
questions not touching their target group.
So when the interest are far enough apart we will always end up with 50% as
was the case after the first attack on these numbers.

For instance: all but governmental institutions, would be interested in the
"availibilty" of a domain, hence the high percentage of not important for
the government group.
Same goes for similar names and merchant verification, all other groups
however (disregarding "not stated") had a form of interest in these
questions, So i deleted the government answers from the totals and made new
totals and averages

I did this with several other questions, of each the ommission will be clear
and I think self-explaining.

I will gladly share "my" conclusion on a later stage, but like some feedback
first, so i'll wait for that.

greets

abel

Question5-50+TOTALS.xls