<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Making Statistics about Toll Free Numbers Lie</title>
	<link>http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/blogs/guide/statistics-about-toll-free-numbers.html</link>
	<description>1-800 Toll free number search program to locate vanity 800 numbers</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Quimby</title>
		<link>http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/blogs/guide/statistics-about-toll-free-numbers.html#comment-642</link>
		<author>Bill Quimby</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:08:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/blogs/guide/statistics-about-toll-free-numbers.html#comment-642</guid>
					<description>Dear Ms. Laura Noonan, (VP of 800Response)

I received your letter about one of the posts on our website but I have to disagree with you about a few things.  The post said nothing about your company, it was focused entirely on the charts and statistics.  It didn’t reference or say anything about your company or even mention what you do, other than the one reference as the source of the statistics.  

There is also no law or prohibition against sharing my opinions.  My website and the whole internet is filled with them.  That’s what people go to my website for, along with the 10,000 queries per day we get on our look up tool.

It’s interesting that your letter seems to avoid the whole point of my post, that these statistics are just not true or have been at least severely slanted.  You know as well as I do that the statistics can be twisted to say almost anything.  It seems obvious that they are almost inevitably biased and developed to validate your own sales.  I want to promote vanity numbers as well, I just don’t think it’s necessary or appropriate to make up biased statistics that are simply not true.  Some of them may be true but the numeric numbers vs vanity number figures you came up with are clearly incorrect.

I did take down the image that resembled your chart and made my own from scratch.  I also edited slightly the text of the article.  I apologize that I had forgotten to turn on comments for that post.  I try to turn them on for most articles especially ones like this which might generate some interesting responses (no pun intended).  I’ve posted this letter in the comments on that post as well as mailing it. You are more than welcome to respond but any future communication will be posted there anyway so please do so in the comments on the blog post.&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Ms. Laura Noonan, (VP of 800Response)</p>
<p>I received your letter about one of the posts on our website but I have to disagree with you about a few things.  The post said nothing about your company, it was focused entirely on the charts and statistics.  It didn’t reference or say anything about your company or even mention what you do, other than the one reference as the source of the statistics.  </p>
<p>There is also no law or prohibition against sharing my opinions.  My website and the whole internet is filled with them.  That’s what people go to my website for, along with the 10,000 queries per day we get on our look up tool.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that your letter seems to avoid the whole point of my post, that these statistics are just not true or have been at least severely slanted.  You know as well as I do that the statistics can be twisted to say almost anything.  It seems obvious that they are almost inevitably biased and developed to validate your own sales.  I want to promote vanity numbers as well, I just don’t think it’s necessary or appropriate to make up biased statistics that are simply not true.  Some of them may be true but the numeric numbers vs vanity number figures you came up with are clearly incorrect.</p>
<p>I did take down the image that resembled your chart and made my own from scratch.  I also edited slightly the text of the article.  I apologize that I had forgotten to turn on comments for that post.  I try to turn them on for most articles especially ones like this which might generate some interesting responses (no pun intended).  I’ve posted this letter in the comments on that post as well as mailing it. You are more than welcome to respond but any future communication will be posted there anyway so please do so in the comments on the blog post.
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Quimby</title>
		<link>http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/blogs/guide/statistics-about-toll-free-numbers.html#comment-647</link>
		<author>Bill Quimby</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/blogs/guide/statistics-about-toll-free-numbers.html#comment-647</guid>
					<description>One more comment--  The more someone pressures me to backdown, the less inclined I am to comply, especially if I believe I'm in the right.

Point blank, their statistic about 58% of people preferring vanity numbers over numeric numbers is WRONG.  They only offer vanity numbers not numeric numbers and they have mostly "800s" so it's no surprise that that's what their "statistics" say are the best.  

I'm not saying that their statistics are all as wrong as the numeric one.  But they are certainly designed to sell their numbers and make them look good.  And if they'll skew this one that much, it makes me not trust the rest very much either.

I doubt they'll respond but anyone that wants to add their own two cents, please chime in!&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more comment&#8211;  The more someone pressures me to backdown, the less inclined I am to comply, especially if I believe I&#8217;m in the right.</p>
<p>Point blank, their statistic about 58% of people preferring vanity numbers over numeric numbers is WRONG.  They only offer vanity numbers not numeric numbers and they have mostly &#8220;800s&#8221; so it&#8217;s no surprise that that&#8217;s what their &#8220;statistics&#8221; say are the best.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying that their statistics are all as wrong as the numeric one.  But they are certainly designed to sell their numbers and make them look good.  And if they&#8217;ll skew this one that much, it makes me not trust the rest very much either.</p>
<p>I doubt they&#8217;ll respond but anyone that wants to add their own two cents, please chime in!
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is TollFreeNumber.org Lying AGAIN? at TollFreeNumbers.com</title>
		<link>http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/blogs/guide/statistics-about-toll-free-numbers.html#comment-1044</link>
		<author>Is TollFreeNumber.org Lying AGAIN? at TollFreeNumbers.com</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:33:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tollfreenumbers.com/blogs/guide/statistics-about-toll-free-numbers.html#comment-1044</guid>
					<description>[...] did this before when 800response made up statistics saying that 58% of people prefer vanity numbers vs numeric toll free numbers. That&#8217;s just not [...]&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] did this before when 800response made up statistics saying that 58% of people prefer vanity numbers vs numeric toll free numbers. That&#8217;s just not [&#8230;]
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
