[cr3ative]

> Bom's spokesperson told the BBC it had received about 400,000 items of feedback on the new site, which accounted for less than 1% of the 55 million visits in the past month.

This is a _remarkably_ bad attempt to make the complaints look reduced in comparison to usage. Amazing that any organisation would try this line.

[eclecticdt]

Why do you think this is so remarkably bad? I’m not saying I disagree I’m just not sure I understand where you’re coming from and I’m curious.

[recursivecaveat]

The base rate of giving feedback on a weather website has to be incredibly low. I've never done it in my life. It's kind of like saying that less than 1% of constituents have phoned their congressperson about Bill XYZ; doesn't really mean anything. If every one of those visits is a page load or something 1% would be incredibly high.

[lbreakjai]

Because it implicitly suggests that 99% of the visitors are happy with the website. Without knowing the number of unique visitors during that month, and the number of people that complained, this is meaningless.

[sam-cop-vimes]

Not sure this needs any explanation! Most people don't give feedback to a weather site. 400K items of feedback is a tsunami of feedback.

[Thorrez]

400,000 items is feedback is a very large number.