Skip to content
ML Academy

Statistics, experimentation, causal reasoning · insight-1028

Do not treat a very large opt-in sample as more trustworthy than a small random one

Evidence type
documented fact
Difficulty
hard
Roles
Data scientist, Data analyst
Industries
aviation, retail, public-sector

Summary: situation, action, reason, boundary

  1. Situation

    A post-trip rating prompt collects 60,000 voluntary responses out of 2 million passengers, and the average is presented with a tiny confidence interval.

  2. Action

    Compare respondents with the passenger base on known attributes, estimate how strongly response relates to the outcome with a small random follow-up sample, and prefer a modest probability sample for headline levels. Use the large opt-in data for trends and relative comparisons with that caveat.

  3. Reason

    Error of a sample average splits into data quality, the correlation between the outcome and the response indicator, data quantity and problem difficulty; with non-random response the error relative to the usual benchmark grows with population size.

  4. Boundary

    Voluntary surveys, app ratings, support-contact analysis and opt-in panels.

Symptom or risk

Whether people respond is related to how they felt, so the average is biased, and more responses make the interval narrower around the wrong value.

Exceptions

Response mechanisms plausibly unrelated to the outcome, which is hard to demonstrate.

Trade-offs

Probability samples cost money and have their own non-response.

Pitfalls

Quoting a margin of error computed as if responses were a random draw.

Example

Hypothetical: with a response-outcome correlation of 0.05, 60,000 of 2,000,000 respondents give an error near 0.28 standard deviations, versus about 0.03 for a random sample of 1,500.

Lessons and concepts

Claims and their sources