I usually like to go through my questions and answers and edit them, and make sure that they are up to date. I was going through my skeptics.se questions, and in this question, Does a webpage with a black background save energy?, I noticed that the accepted answer had gone missing. What happened to it? It was a good answer, and it would be great if it could be brought back.
They were anecdotal answers: in other words, "I've personally measured it and...".
I know they were quite up voted. I know it will ruffle some feathers. The users will keep their reputation, but we can't have that kind of broken windows on the site.
Running your own pseudo-experiment and posting an answer is not proof of anything. It's anecdotal. It may convince yourself, but it won't (and shouldn't!) convince anybody else.
A real experiment has different characteristics:
- It's usually run on large samples.
- Its methodology is described accurately.
- It comes with sensible error estimations.
- Its data is disclosed to the public.
- It's peer-reviewed multiple times (before and after publication).
- It's generally replicated by other teams.
- It's based on peer-reviewed references
In other words - a far cry from a layman at home with a consumer watt-metre, no offense :-)
- How do you know that the answers are not fake?
- How accurate are the measurements?
- Are the monitors representative of the average in any form? Are they even meant to be representative?
- Have they tried to replicate the results?
The point here is, these answers are not good for the site - they are not looking at the science behind claims. They are doing amateur science. As such, I would completely welcome and encourage them on a PopSci site, but not here.
The whole point of this site is to look at evidence, facts, references, studies to answers some questions where other sites produce anecdotes and points of view.
If we allow such answers, then we produce clearly no better than the claims we want to investigate.