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