Second, the number of respondees or the proportion responding a certain way are irrelevant if the sample is biased. The poll is designed in a way that practically guarantees bias: a self-selected sample, a hot-button issue where one side cares much more strongly than the other, and the viral hooks of Facebook to make sure it gets spread far and wide.
It's worthless if you're looking to draw any real conclusions about how Facebook users feel about the new homepage. It's not worthless if you're looking to exploit people's confirmation bias and get an article all over the web.
So, YMMV, I guess.
http://www.insidefacebook.com/2008/12/16/facebook-now-growin...
It also reports 13 million users log in once per day. That, in the context of Facebook, is what I'd call an "active user". These, overwhelmingly, are the people who are taking this poll. 700,000 therefore represents about 5% of the core userbase.
Your math here is really flawed. Facebook's daily uniques are a magnitude smaller than their weekly and monthly uniques. Since this survey has been up since the redesign, you would have to compare 700k to the number of uniques over that period of time. I can assure you that number is much greater than 13M.
True, 700,000 is not a staggering number for Facebook, but is a statistically signifiant portion of their most active users. I wouldn't put money on the figure of 94%, but I think it correctly indicates a strong trend.
It actually doesn't matter with respect to the more salient point, which is that talk of "statistical significance" is irrelevant because the calculations require an unbiased sample. As I outlined above, there are at least three strong reasons to suspect this poll is irreparably biased.
Self-selection alone is typically enough to condemn a poll. Look up the history of Gallup if you want to see the real-world impact of self-selection in polling.
For the record: perhaps 10 of my friends have voted no. This is not a significant percentage. Of those 10, probably about 8 of them did it as an impulse vote and 2 actually got annoyed at the layout.
Correct. Ordinarily, the ABSOLUTE size of a sample is more crucial than what percentage of the whole a sample makes up, for determining whether the sample is adequately large, but that is only if the sample is unbiased. If that precondition is not met, don't talk about how large the sample is, talk about how badly self-selected "samples" can misrepresent the characteristics of a population. Thanks for reminding HN readers about this important issue.
But there was just the same outrage over that design for a good month. I probably got 10 group invites to groups like "new facebook sucks!" and "don't visit facebook on (some date) to show them how much we hate new facebook."
I'm not sure if anyone took a poll, even a biased one, but I haven't noticed among my friends any more outrage over this redesign than the last one.