While I was preparing an internet survey, I read from multiple sources which says it is more important to have a high response rate than large sample size.
Q1. I don't quite understand the logic behind this. Can you explain? If i can afford to survey the entire population, would that be better than a random sub-sample?
Also, the importance of random sampling is often stressed.
Q2. But what if I just invite the entire population of interest to the survey (because I can... using the internet). Wouldn't this be better than random sampling (even though the response rate might be lower because N is larger?)
I understand the answer to the questions above might depends on the objective of the study. If this is the case please delineate this for me. Thank you!
After seeing seeing several responses, I guess I have asked a misleading question. I am not comparing response rate and sample size as in a contest of which is more important. I am trying to find out, if it costs me nothing more, relative to random sub-sampling, to survey the entire population of interest, is there any reason why I shouldn't do that and stick with a random sub-sample instead?