awenger

Complete here means the full end-to-end sequence of all chromosomes in a single human cell line named CHM13. The typical human cell has 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs (one from our mother, one from our father) named chromosome 1, chromosome 2, and so on. This CHM13 cell line is special is that each of its pairs is (nearly) identical. Each chromosome is a long string of A,C,G,T nucleotides. So, this complete genome is a full set of 23 sequences without any "not sure" positions or "gaps" in the sequence.

One common analogy is to consider the genome sequence (a.k.a. assembly) as a map. Since the initial publication of the human genome in the early 2000s, most regions of human DNA has been known in full resolution. Other portions, most prominently the repetitive centromeres that lie at the middle of chromosomes, have remained unmapped. It was known that they exist, approximately how big they were, and which types of sequences lay inside, but the full order of the sequence had never been determined for any human genome until this work.

You could consider the genome like the earth and the centromeres like a dense rainforest. Previously we had detailed maps of most of the earth, and we had mapped the boundaries of the rainforest and had satellite-level images (i.e. we knew they were full of plants). Now we have on-the-ground pictures with full detail.

Having a map of these sequences makes the accessible to study. One of the most valuable uses of the human genome is as a shared coordinate system used by scientists to compare different individuals and identify and name genetic variants that explain human traits. We lacked that coordinate system for a big chunk of the genome until now.

As you say, this paper reports the sequence of a single human cell line named CHM13. Each of us has a slightly different genome sequence (really two of them, one from each parent). Now when scientists sequence the genomes of more individuals, they can look at these regions that were previously ignored. Certainly understanding those regions will improve our understanding of human biology. Exactly how much will remain to be seen.

Same here. Only after login though.

OP here. That's correct. This is work of Survata not Yahoo. I see how the title might suggest a connection, but that was not our intent.

Survata co-founder here. To clarify, Survata is not a voluntary response sample. Voluntary samples often have a bias because the individuals who choose to respond are those with strong feelings on a topic. For our surveys, the primary incentive is access to premium content - and not a desire to express one's opinion on a topic. We aim to have a respondent pool that truly represents the population.

Survata co-founder here.

Good point. We had the same thought and did consider running a survey variant with the fixed 6 mo time frame. And we may just give it a try to see how the results are affected.

Even with the current wording, I find the SMS comparison useful. It demonstrates that people are willing to admit to sexting in the anonymous Survata survey format. I like your hypothesis about greater willingness to admit to "bad behavior" in the distant past than in the recent past. My intuition is that anonymity weakens that effect, but we'll have to measure to know for certain.

That's one of the first things that we (I'm a Survata co-founder) noted in seeing the data too.

I see a few possible explanations: (1) A woman who sexts could have multiple sexting partners. In the extreme, you could have every man in the world sext with one woman, making the male sexting prevalence 100% and the female near 0. (2) While we defined sexting as "sending or receiving", some respondents may interpret the question as primarily about sending. There could be a gender bias in the sending vs receiving of sexts. (3) As you point out, the data is reported behavior and not observed behavior. Reported behavior often is a good proxy for observed behavior, but it is not perfect. And there are known to be effects where certain demographics answer questions dishonestly for conscious or unconscious reasons. Perhaps women are less willing to admit to sexting behavior.

(Survata co-founder here)

Survata has a DIY survey creation tool, but we review and suggest wording changes to avoid biased questions. We also advise on how to arrange (and randomize) answer choices to allow us to calculate and compensate for answer biases like always clicking the first or last option.

Responses are gathered on surveywalls across the web, where visitors answer short surveys in exchange for free access to premium content (e.g. ebook or video).

Thanks again, Alex. I appreciate the comments and great ideas.

We do plan to add polling and survey design experts to our team (I have stats but not polling background). And an analytics platform is coming.

What do you mean by our survey "might take the user by surprise"? Do you mean that it might be surprising to the user to have a survey launch when clicking one of our links? We're testing different "teaser" text for the links. And hopefully we can make it clear that a survey will be coming when you click.

If you're willing to run a test survey, fill out the contact us form on our site, and we'll give you a discount code. Appreciate the feedback.

I always forget how sarcasm is lost online. I meant that as an example of a misleading, bad poll.