I just posted some requests for further information.

I hope you will conisder placing the methodology on the post results page.

And, for the record, I wasn’t referring to you.

I, too, would like to see the survey’s methodology published. That is the failing of many surveys. They don’t provide the background to determine validity.

I disagree about the survey’s response rate being small – or nonprobablistic – if I get your drift. 821 out of the list they emailed? I don’t know the list’s size. Do you? If it was the top 1, 2 or even 10 thousand … that’s not too bad. That would be an 82%, 41% or 8% response rate. I don’t think that is small at all. It is actually higher than many academic efforts I’ve seen.

And, if those are the ones they emailed, then it is probable that those are the bloggers likely to be pitched.

Now, if we are talking non-problematic in their approach … Yes, I would agree that the issue is more CRM than media relations in dealing with – pitching to – bloggers. But, this survey is a start.

What I see as positive about the Edelman/Technorati survey versus – say – the Blog Relations Survey is the respondent pool. 821 respondents versus 50? Not a really hard decision to see that one is likely going to have a more valid outcome. Respondent pool alone does not determine validity, but it is a strong determining factor.

I note that Edelman/Technorati have now added more information about the respondent pool. The Blog Survey did not. Edelman/Technorati offer Free-form Answers, Geographic Data, and Language Data. The Blog Survey did not – initially. At least one PR blogger linked to The Blog Survey with out questioning it. In contrast, they criticized the Edelman/Technorati survey. That, to me, says they don’t get it. And, they don’t understand survey research.

Edelman/Technorati is still shy of the total disclosure / transparency level for reporting their methodology. They have, however, been more open about it. Edelman is a large corporation. That they chose to begin with a standard survey does not surprise me. I expect more research down the road. I do not fault them for starting out with the type of research they know and are comfortable with … in fact, I believe they have been transparent in stating that this is a learning experience for them. So, I give them (a) the benefit of the doubt and (b) the kudos for making the effort. If nothing else, they are giving the issue of blogs in business and PR more validity.

For example: I’d like to see Edelman acknowledging that their research is based on a nonprobabilistic sample and that the rate of response is very small. How should the results be interpreted, as a result of these limitations?

Am I asking too much?