Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeFigure 8
Posted by Enro on 21 Dec 2014 at 13:22 GMT
I can't quite understand how figure 8, which ought to be a good educational synthesis of your study, actually exemplifies a typical crowdfunding campaign.
Indeed, the numbers on this figure seem often at odds with the article:
- 1.7 project views per contact email is consistent with the text stating 1.72 visits per person emailed pre-goal;
- 92 views per press contact differs slightly from the text stating ~93 page views per press contacted
- 1 project view per tweet per 70 followers doesn't conform with the text stating that for every ~75 followers, 1 tweet would bring in 1 page view
- 1 contributor per 100 view of the SciFund challenge page, which doesn't show in the text if I'm correct
- 1 contributor per 50 FB friends while the text states one contributor for every 53 Facebook friends
- ~$50 donation per contributor differs slightly from the text stating that for every contributor, projects raised a mean of US$54.19
- $2,750 project goal doesn't seem to be a mean project goal and appears nowhere else in the text.
I recommend that you check these figures and harmonize them when you can, for the sake of the argument. Also, the project goal used in the figure should be the average project goal rather than an a random number, to make it more meaningful.
RE: Figure 8
jebyrnes replied to Enro on 20 Jan 2015 at 18:04 GMT
Thanks for your comment! Indeed, I think this was due to our overzealous rounding as we made early versions of this figure as a communications tool. Hence the loss of precision. We've remade it to be more precise, and are working with PLoS One to replace it. Thanks for your comments, and hope that this didn't distract from the overall point of the paper.
RE: RE: Figure 8
Enro replied to jebyrnes on 19 Nov 2015 at 21:22 GMT
Dear colleague, am I right to say that Figure 8 has not been replaced by the updated version you mention? When do you see that happening?
Thank you in advance and best regards.