While the report may not be up to publishable standards in the professional community, I think it is a very big leap in the right direction and a laudable report of something very important to the community. I don't believe at all that the data isn't worthy because it's flawed. Personally I'm OK with a survey with bias towards more action against bullying.
It's obvious Mirandha put a lot of effort into the report. That's awesome. More data is good data, especially when peers can help with the process to weed out the very things that are being brought up.
Plus, classically the "email your criticism" falls into the abyss never to be seen again. It has since the dawn of time. This isn't a new revelation. No offense.
Actually, this community *is* professional. It's a 501(c)3 non-profit organization under the US tax code. Even if it wasn't professional, we should always aim to do the best that we can with the information that we have. You can not draw certain conclusions off flawed data and analysis. What if the report actually shows that there is *less* bullying than there actually is? If you saw my analysis above, I showed that you can make a case for 24% or 40% of people seeing bullying in chat. If all we wanted to know was if there more action against bullying necessary, a simple yes/no poll would suffice. Clearly, the administration is looking for more than that.
Additionally, it's obvious to everyone that Dha and the rest of the team worked hard on this report. Indeed, the team did the best they could with what they had to work with. Just because there are flaws doesn't mean that they did not do significant legwork, nor does it mean their work is completely invalid. It also does not mean those that have criticisms of the methodology are unappreciative of the work that has been done.
Saying that "more data is good data" is untrue. In many cases, a flood of irrelevant data obscures the important information. One of the current problems in biomedical research is that the technology is advanced enough to yield enormous amounts of data; however, we are unable to accurately decipher that data and draw significant conclusions. Collecting that data serves no purpose except to waste time and resources. That's not to say that the data that has been collected by the survey is a waste, more that the thought process behind collecting additional data is flawed.
Like Asandra said, just because something isn't a new revelation doesn't mean it isn't a valid concern. If people fall silent on this subject then it implies that it is not a concern. There can be no change unless there is a reason given for that change to happen. It really does seem like every time these kinds of concerns are raised, they are diverted to e-mail or shut down as getting "too heated", "too personal", "unproductive", or a number of other reasons. Then, we get a rehash of the same conversation the next time an issue comes up.