Aha

With all of the discussions about time spent on social networking sites, I wonder about the accuracy of our statistics. I read several different articles through my research as well as those posted by others on their blogs and most surprised me. I'm not questioning the validity of the data so much as I question the samples that have been used to gather the information.
For example, one of Amanda's articles posted below says that people spend seven hours on average using Facebook per month. The problem with averages is that they really don't reveal that much information about a given topic. There could be people who check in on Facebook for one 5-minute session during a month. There could also be people who are spending over 5 hours per day on Facebook. In the end, it might all average out to seven hours per month, but without including the range, the average statistics don't mean much. Not to mention taking into account those who open several different browser windows on the computer screen and don't actively use all of them at once (I am definitely guilty of this). If I were keeping data just based on my own use like I did for the Digital Diary assignment, I would have to take into account that much of the time I spent "networking" is actually spent multi-tasking (i.e. I have Facebook open, but I'm really watching television or talking to my husband and then checking the webpage periodically).
My "aha" has to do with the media's portrayal of social networking. I think we have grown accustomed to hearing all about "Facebook addicts" and the people who spend hours at a time on social media. I've seen statistics to confirm this, but I have also seen statistics that show the opposite (such as the seven hours per month mentioned above). I think that the authors of these articles are using statistics to prove a point, whether they are biased or not.