Is this referring to Google. I never click any buttons or participate in surveys to send more data to companies like Google. Whether I found what I was looking for, etc. is none of their business. As such, any conclusions made from users (or bots) who do click such buttons is ignoring all the users who don't.
At the same time, I do have opinions about these companies and what they have done to the concept of a "www search engine". I may share these elsewhere, such as on HN. Any conclusions based solely on clicking buttons on a company website would be ignoring user comments elsewhere. One could argue any results are only potentially applicable to the type of user that clicks buttons asking for feedback, which may be a small subsection of total users.
"Priming" is an interesting idea. One of the earliest, most cited studies was performed by one of Robert Zajonc's PhD students who joined the faculty at NYU and is now at Yale -- John Bargh. However those foundational studies and subsequent ones by Bargh, as well as countless social psychology research that relies on them, were called into question about ten years ago when other labs found the results could not be replicated.^1 When one of these labs in Belgium published about the failure to replicate, Bargh went bananas. He attacked the investigator's paper but failed to address the issue by trying to replicate the original study himself. Daniel Kahnemman, whose popular science books which often rely on these studies, acknowledged the problem and called for more replication studies in social pscychology.^2
At the same time, I do have opinions about these companies and what they have done to the concept of a "www search engine". I may share these elsewhere, such as on HN. Any conclusions based solely on clicking buttons on a company website would be ignoring user comments elsewhere. One could argue any results are only potentially applicable to the type of user that clicks buttons asking for feedback, which may be a small subsection of total users.
"Priming" is an interesting idea. One of the earliest, most cited studies was performed by one of Robert Zajonc's PhD students who joined the faculty at NYU and is now at Yale -- John Bargh. However those foundational studies and subsequent ones by Bargh, as well as countless social psychology research that relies on them, were called into question about ten years ago when other labs found the results could not be replicated.^1 When one of these labs in Belgium published about the failure to replicate, Bargh went bananas. He attacked the investigator's paper but failed to address the issue by trying to replicate the original study himself. Daniel Kahnemman, whose popular science books which often rely on these studies, acknowledged the problem and called for more replication studies in social pscychology.^2
1.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/1...
http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3430642
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/340408/descriptio...
2.
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinf...