The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it's within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases examined, but we're talking about tens of thousands here.
Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.
Another important caveat is that we're assuming the data collection process was not flawed or biased, which is maybe a legitimate concern. But it's a separate issue entirely.
Yep. Presenting the user with a choice that they don't fully understand (which instance should I choose? What even is an instance?) is a very big deterrent.
I wouldn't say the arguments are all wrong and carry zero weight. How are you so sure that these arguments haven't swayed the majority towards one side or the other? These arguments are happening between actual people (I've heard normal people discuss this outside of online communities), possibly shaping their opinions, and could be what's shaping those 70/80% numbers.
Even though I pronounce it "jif" too, I am tired of seeing arguments that rely on how other words are pronounced. You are not helping the cause, as these arguments are too easily countered. There are much more convincing arguments to be made, such as how "jif" is more practical since it can't be confused with "gift," and how the creator was making a reference to the word "jiffy."
By calling it "jif" I think the creator was referencing "jiffy," as in "fast." It's like a video, but it loads in a jiffy. Or: it's a short looping video - it's over in a jiffy then restarts again.
I think people that call it "gif" don't intuitively get this, even at the subconscious level. If they did, I think they'd prefer "jif." It's much more fun IMO. Not to mention that it's less likely to be mistaken for an existing word (gift). So it's both more fun and more practical. What else do we have to do to convince you people :(
The sample size was in the tens of thousands (39K total cases according to the original EUSEM article) so it would be extremely surprising if there were no real difference. You could easily say it's within margin of error if there were only a few hundred cases examined, but we're talking about tens of thousands here.
Important to note though that the data only accounted for Canada and the US.
Another important caveat is that we're assuming the data collection process was not flawed or biased, which is maybe a legitimate concern. But it's a separate issue entirely.