Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: FiveThirtyEight Establishes Process for Pollsters to Review its Database of Their Polls

6.16.2010

FiveThirtyEight Establishes Process for Pollsters to Review its Database of Their Polls

Yet another housekeeping item, but an important one, as we have established a process by which a pollster may audit polls as they appear in the database used in connection with our pollster ratings. That process is described below.

1. Pollsters may request, and FiveThirtyEight will provide, a list of all polls included under their names in our polling database. Requests should be sent to our polling “hotline” at 538poll@gmail.com. A contact phone number should be provided along with the request. Please be aware that it may occasionally take 72 hours or more to respond to requests, although response times will usually be much faster.

2. Pollsters are strongly encouraged to request any corrections to the database that might be necessary, including both errors and omissions. FiveThirtyEight will honor any and all requests for corrections, provided that the following two criteria are met:

a. Documentation is provided for the correction, for example, a link to a news account of the poll, or a PDF of a press release. Reference to the poll in another secondary source, such as Pollster.com, PollingReport.com, or RealClearPolitics, will suffice as documentation, although pollsters should be aware that these databases themselves contain errors.

b. FiveThirtyEight is satisfied that the pollster has made a reasonable and good-faith effort to provide an unbiased list of discrepancies to FiveThirtyEight, i.e. the errors have been notated to FiveThirtyEight whether or not they would favorably affect the pollster’s rating. By sending a request for corrections to FiveThityEight, the pollster warrants that it has in fact made such an effort. Although FiveThirtyEight will give any benefit of the doubt to the pollster, if in its best judgement the list of corrections requested by the pollster was deliberately biased (i.e. cherrypicked), it may refuse to accept any correction requests from that pollster, it may publicly reprimand the pollster, or both.

3. Pollsters should not be surprised to discover that errors and omissions in fact exist in the database. More often than not, the errors and omissions will also exist in the original sources that FiveThirtyEight used to compile its database, but this will not be true in all cases. So far, four pollsters have been provided with their data, covering approximately 400 polls; they identified 3 errors in the margin that FiveThirtyEight had recorded between the candidates, and 10 improperly omitted polls. More common will be errors related to the sample size of the poll, as this information was not always available from the original sources. For approximately 5-10 percent of the database, sample sizes were estimated rather than taken from hard numbers. Errors and omissions are more likely to occur in Presidential primary polls prior to 2008, in polls for the U.S. House, and in polls for gubernatorial races, and less likely to occur in general election polls for President and the U.S. Senate and the 2008 Presidential primaries

4. FiveThrityEight would appreciate if the pollster carefully review our methodology for including polls prior to submitting correction requests. The review process is not intended to be the venue for debates about FiveThirtyEight's methodology.

5. In some cases, there is ambiguity as to how to credit the poll, e.g., between the fieldwork provider and the media partner. FiveThirtyEight appreciates any information that would help to clarify these ambiguities, but retains the final decision on how to classify any polls.

6. FiveThirtyEight will issue a new set of pollster ratings no earlier than July 15th, but no later than August 15th. All requests for corrections should be provided to FiveThirtyEight by Friday, July 9th.

31 comments

JC said...

Thumbs up.

Jacob said...

Good system; hope no one abuses it.

shrinkers said...

Done very well, Nate, and in keeping with the principles of honesty and transparency and integrity for which FiveThirtyEight is so justifiably known.

Good job all around, and thank you for all your hard word, and for the valuable service you provide.

John said...

Now, about that soccer database ...

enterpriser said...

Nate, I know this question is off-topic, but I was wondering if the internship requires any sort of regular physical meetings or if it is mostly e-mail based communication.

I think I would be a good fit to what you need, but I am only physically available at nights after dinner with the family during the week and on weekends mostly anytime.

Is that ok or would that be incompatible with your schedule?


Also, should the applications be formal resumes or just casual e-mails outlining why I think I am best for the position?


Thanks in advance!

Nate Silver said...

enterpriser,

It's likely that the internship will require occasional travel to the NYT building and/or to my home office. But most work can be done from home.

All applications must include a resume; what you choose to provide in addition to that is up to you.

-Nate

enterpriser said...
This post has been removed by the author.
enterpriser said...

ah Nate, thanks for the prompt reply!

a few more questions:


1) how many applications are you estimating, so I can get a feel for what kind of a chance I have?

I actually had thought there might be relatively few, since even big comment articles only get like 300 comments and it is usually the same people and then when you filter out everyone who is not from NYC, you would have very few people.


But then you say "I expect a huge volume of applications."


2) my resume is really not that impressive.

what specifically are you looking for, from there?

my skills are more from the kind of person I am and how that fits with what I am looking for.


3) Are you looking for any character references from professors, teachers, etc.?


4) On an average night, how many hours of work should I expect to do from home?, just to ensure I do not overload myself.


I would have sent these questions in an e-mail, but your FAQ mentions that your turnover time is a week or more, so I figured this article might be a better idea.


You actually might want to enable comments on that article to avoid these derailings.



Sorry for the interruption folks!

enterpriser said...

sorry for the double post; it said it did not go through the first time.

but the second post is the full one.

shiloh said...

enterpriser, you can delete duplicate posts by clicking on the small trashcan at the bottom of your post under the date ...

enterpriser said...

deleted it!

DCM in FL said...

ENT

send Nate an email with your Q's

pr - there are a limited # of us who actually comment - but a rather large universe of lurkers who do drive-bys as well as cross-posts on other blogs

wv -eyerin [supplements for your eyes]

enterpriser said...

"send Nate an email with your Q's"


lol, I said in my post that his FAQ claims it will take him a week to answer e-mails.


If he does not respond here by tomorrow morning though, I guess I will send it anyway.

Matt said...

This looks fair to me, and I think it's a reasonable-looking system. My guess is that the review process leads to no significant changes in the ratings.

Goddard is wasting no time in taking credit for this event at Political Wire, and even his own regulars are calling him out at his superfluous back-patting.

DCM in FL said...

MATT

exagerate much ???

Political Wire is a perfectly fine blog [which I always check BEFORE 538 btw], but your comment above that "even his [TG's] own regulars are calling him out" is way beyond the pall...

comeon, ONE whiney commenter has posted TWICE that he personally is upset [and upset for his own whiney reasons it appears]

you are entitled to your own opinions [even when you are wrong] - but at least try to be fair & balanced... not a troll

or are you the whiney 'IbrahimMahmoudA' @ Political Wire ???

Jacob said...

@enterpriser

Most prospective employers will look through apps at the designated forum (i.e. emailed in here) even if the reply is not as prompt. Also, word of advice: don't advertise things like "my resume is really not that impressive." It's probably better than you think, and even if it's not you don't want to assume that's the impression people get.

Glenn Doty said...

The system looks fair.

Nate, I was wondering if, while compiling your current database, you already had recorded sufficient amounts of polling done months in advance.

It would be nice to see a review of the average accuracy of polls done 5 months in advance - just to put the current (worthless) polls in perspective.

JBillones said...

>> "send Nate an email with your Q's"

> "lol, I said in my post that his FAQ claims it will take him a week to answer e-mails."

> "If he does not respond here by tomorrow morning though, I guess I will send it anyway."

So at this point, what Nate knows about you is that you don't follow directions.

Good luck with that.

(Verification word: hanati. Would it take colmes?)

Tyler said...

There's an extra character at the end of the URL for the Methodology link (a capital D) that's rendering the link invalid.

Here's the proper URL:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-methodology.html

Matt said...

DCM -

I actually agree with some of the points Goddard made about transparency. The issue I had was with his move to somehow take credit for some sort of amazing discovery. He was hardly the only driving force, and the results obtained were minor and barely significant at best.

And there has certainly been more than one critical comment of Goddard on Political Wire. Goddard has been systematically deleting critical comments since last night.

Jacob said...

Per Nate's twitter feed...

Words like 'earthquake' and 'challenge' are elitist because they have more than 7 letters, says CNN "expert".


Though the speech wasn't Obama's best, it looks like they're reaching pretty far to find something "elitist" in it.

What is he supposed to say, "When the ground done got all shook up?"

shadow said...

DCM, you only notice one commenter complaining about Taegan's ridiculous treatment of Nate because Taegan is deleting comments at the end of the day. There are plenty of us who frequent both websites and are absolutely astounded by the tone taken by Taegan and the manner in which he criticized Nate's work.

DCM in FL said...

MATT

sorry Matt, but your first post seemed a tad harsh imho. your last post on TG was much more balanced...

and I actually do agree with the manner you stated this time to some degree.

however, I feel TG performed a valuable service even if we do not like the message or manner in which it was delivered...

chris said...

@Jacob

Jacob said...

Per Nate's twitter feed...

Words like 'earthquake' and 'challenge' are elitist because they have more than 7 letters, says CNN "expert".


Most people (especially 'non-elitists') listen to (rather than read) a speech.

Therefore, i would argue that if the speech had more than an average of say three or more syllables per word (rather than counting the numbers of letters in a word), it would be reasonable approach to alleging elitism in a speech.

Note that "earthquake' and "challenge" both have two syllables.

chris said...

Ironically, the word "elitism" doesn't have more than 7 letters but has 4 syllables.

DCM in FL said...

SHADOW

I cannot assume that TG posted what he did to promote himself. His posts are typically very brief & provide links to the source - not detailed so perhaps some drew more inference than TG meant to imply ?

It is far easier & much more common for folks to complain & post criticisms than complements, no ???

hell YES !!! so comparing complainers to supporters is unbalanced...

still, on balance Political Wire took a bit of a risk by potentially 'offending' another progressive [Nate] 7 his followers

that is not easy in this hyper-sensitive political environment.

the point remains, that Nate's rankings are to some degree an early draft with built-in arbitrary assumptions made [such as the 21 day window] - and more transparency is always a good thing, no ?

besides, rating systems are still comparing apples to oranges since the polls are of not the same universe of data or dates so that there is an abundance of subjectivity involved.

but this constructive critique exercise does serve a purpose, and imho Nate is better for it in the long run for responding now with an audit mechanism that will make his product stronger/more robust for further scrutiny down the line...

I still am concerned that the roadmap to game Nate's rankings is so well laid out [poll early ala Ras, no releases late on tough elections or small markets or specials or primaries, hit the easy general polls often to rack up bonus points...]

ie - Selzer came off looking sorta bad on the IA GOP GOV primary with the spread under 10... should they now take a BIG hit for releasing their poll showing Branstad winning BIG ? were there other mitigating issues on election day such as bad weather or such ??? Selzer has a very small pool of qualifying polls, so being 'off' on 1 of 13 [?] could have major impact if Nate revises his ratings dynamically...

since general release political polling is NOT a major money maker for any of these firms, and their rep is on the line - I fear that too much importance being paid to margins will hinder polling in the future...

except to increase those impossible to refute narrative & issue/agenda push polls that we are subjected to ad nauseum with no 'balance' or ability to rate while these pollsters use Nate as proof that their #'s are accurate clear across the board in the MSM...

the unintended consequences of Nate's ratings will foster additional gaming of the system as a marketing tool + very possibly dampen general access to late polling of difficult races where an outlier will burn their ratings

we may easily regress back to the days of leaked internal partisan polls only...

I would rather see Nate attempt to rate pollsters in direct comparison on comparable polls of the same election rather than attempt to accumulate all results into one universe

this current system is too overly broad in scope - and the differences are not that extreme, especially in the middle range [as evidenced by where Strategic Vision rated] - OK, and Zogby internet...

just sayin'

but I do appreciate Nate's efforts to try to prompt pollsters to be more professional

however, he should more heavily penalize & 'ding' every pollster who fails to make public sufficient access to the crosstabs or their 'secret' model to at least his analysis

Jacob said...

chris said...

Ironically, the word "elitism" doesn't have more than 7 letters but has 4 syllables.


Well, 3 1/2 or so. But only elitists talk about isms.

Jacob said...

Sorta reminds me of the conservative debate commentators in 2000 who said that Gore was showing his elitism and taking an unfair hit at Bush by pronouncing the names of foreign leaders correctly.

shiloh said...

Gore misunderestimated Bush ...

btw, (7) syllables!

DCM in FL said...

and now Kirk in IL says about his military service: “I simply misremembered it wrong,” he told The Chicago Sun-Times...

wv - gramich [a grammar sandwich of sorts - like 'misremembered']

DCM in FL said...

think we can figure out what NATE is doing today [Friday]...

preparing his response to the new Pollster article:

"Are Nate Silver's Pollster Ratings 'Done Right'?'

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/are_nate_silvers_pollster_rati.php