• hikaru755@lemmy.worldOP
    2·
    2 months ago

    I don’t actually mind that, as it gives a worst case estimation and it is likely to be better in reality. Better than the other way around

    • julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de
      1·
      2 months ago

      What do you mean by worst case?

      I cannot provide a good source (besides the book “How to measure anything”) for this, but probably 50 random participants would be enough to provide a pretty accurate estimate of waitlist wait time. That‘s orders of magnitude less than the data these sites have, but they are probably less accurate.

      • hikaru755@lemmy.worldOP
        3·
        2 months ago

        What do you mean by worst case?

        As you said these sites are likely to overrepresent waitlisted people. As a fellow waitlisted person, I’m using them to get an idea of how “bad” the situation is, i.e. to curb my expectations about moving to the reservation list at some point. Waitlisted people being overrepresented will make the situation look worse than it is, meaning I’m more likely to be positively surprised than negatively.

        • julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de
          1·
          2 months ago

          How do you know that waitlist people are overrepresented? The problem with sampling biases is that you don‘t how the estimate is affected.

          • hikaru755@lemmy.worldOP
            1·
            2 months ago

            I only stumbled over these sites after I got put on the waitlist, if I had gotten on the reservation list I probably wouldn’t have looked around as much. Assuming I’m not special, that would mean there’s some bias towards waitlisted people. But I might be wrong about that, sure