Sunday, December 1, 2019

Story image for lavish wedding from hellomagazine.com

Will Jennifer Aniston wed in Valentino?

hellomagazine.com-Mar. 4, 2013
With one of Hollywood's most hotly anticipated weddings predicted to occur ... for a princess-like beaded wedding dress when she wed actor Brad Pitt in a lavish ...
Story image for lavish wedding from Daily Mail

Kate Bosworth on her Art Deco-inspired wedding ring - and ...

Daily Mail-Sep. 5, 2013
Band of love: Kate Bosworth chose a custom-made diamond wedding ring by Ocappi. The baguette-laden design took more than 18 hours to craft and was ...
Story image for lavish wedding from E! Online

Chrissy Teigen Shows Off Red Wedding Dress

E! Online-Oct. 3, 2013
We're finally getting a look at Chrissy Teigen's third wedding dress from her ... 14 in a lavish ceremony in Italy surrounded by family and famous guests like ...
Story image for lavish wedding from Mirror.co.uk

Bride's father chokes to death at daughter's wedding reception ...

Mirror.co.uk-Aug. 30, 2013
Jagan Babwah, 73, beamed with pride as he gave his daughter Camela away during her lavish wedding ceremony at a picturesque castle owned by Jools ...

1 comment:

Pearl Necklace said...

Violation of representativeness. The sample is always somewhat different from the General population. Even more differences are observed already after a survey because of the refusal of respondents to answer individual questions. Depending on the nature and form of the balance of groups of respondents on the signs varies. So, combined (tabular), motivational and other issues have, as a rule, more refusals to answer than factual. More cracks are open questions. If we consider that the open question answer, as already mentioned, from 40 to 70%, you can imagine what the difference will be in the sample answering closed and open questions. In fact, the answers to the open question does not characterize the General population and not even sample my own. Naturally, this will affect the distribution of answers of respondents through open and closed questions.
-- The difference in the responses to the open and closed question gives sometimes incorrect counting of votes in their percentage. Since the open question is answered by fewer respondents, respectively, the percentage responding in a particular position, if you take it from the total of respondents, will be less. In this case, it is necessary to take the response rate to a particular alternative from the total number of respondents and the total number of respondents for a given (closed or open) question, or take it from the total number of suggestions made by respondents. Although in this case the difference in responses is not excluded completely, but it has a different nature.
-- The difference in responses to indoor and outdoor issues may emerge from different interpretations of the concepts researcher and the Respondent. For example, in a closed question-turnover alternative to the "lack of housing" can be understood by the Respondent differently than understood by the sociologist. The Respondent can understand the "comfortable housing" as housing improvement, more well-maintained apartment, the researcher understands under this General lack of decent housing, in particular, separate apartments with all amenities. Perhaps this is why the sociologist becomes a dead end when he sees that having a well-developed, according to the researcher, housing, called in most cases (70%) as the main reasons for dismissal the lack of decent housing.
Conversely, when analyzing respondents ' answers to the open question, the sociologist may incorrectly interpret the interviewees and group them in accordance with its own logic of reasoning. So, the statement of the respondents to the open question on the reasons for dismissing "lack of housing" the sociologist may not be attributed to the group dismissal because of lack of housing, and group dismissals due to excessive demand. Accordingly, there will be differences in the respondents ' answers to open and closed questions on the same alternative: the dismissal for lack of housing.