Please, this is not intended to start another 'debate' along the lines of the one we had here the other day.
Just an opinion - this week's poll has thrown up some 147 (at last looking) votes so far.
Most other polls have hovered around the 100/105 mark, apart from the Bull Bar one.
So, does it mean this topic is so emotive that we have potentially another 50% of people voting?
All those quiet 'read-onlys' have suddenly come out and voted, or something else?
Or are there a lot of multiple votes going on?
Would be interested to know the true figures!
HF
|
I do not think one can vote again, at least not without multiple registration. Purely in the cause of inquiry (I'd have voted once each way) I tried a minute ago, with no effect on the figures.
Tomo.
|
|
|
I voted multiple (3) times! It was the only way you could see the running results, it failed otherwise.
The first vote represented my true opinion. The other 2 votes were cast to cancel themselves out, ie 1 either way.
Apologies if you think this skewed the result.
|
You can vote again. The software supplied by alxnet provides a number of different blocking modes to choose from, but as I\'ll explain these are not altogether appropriate.
The first blocks comeback voters by IP address (the address of the voter\'s computer), but since most service providers give you a different IP address each time you go online that would be ineffective.
The second uses cookies. This works in our case -- for registered users at least -- because you need to have cookies functioning in order to use The Back Room.
However, both systems block comeback voters for a given number of days. If -- as we\'ve been doing -- we post a new poll every week or so, that means that people may not be able to register a vote in a subsequent poll. The upshot is that we\'ve used both the IP method and the cookie method, but reduced the blocking time to 24 hours.
The results may well be skewed by repeat voting, but I work on the assumption that if anyone wants to stuff the poll up, it\'s their funeral not mine.
In reply to HF\'s observation, I think the extra response might be due to the fact that I\'ve left the poll to run for a bit longer than usual.
Martyn [Back Room moderator]
====================
mailto:webmaster@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Martyn,
Sorry if this was answered in the deleted thread but I dont log in over the weekend. I made the observation that the poll provided by alxnet doesnt seem to be very reliable, often unavailable. Also without checking every day there is no way of knowing the result of the poll before it is deleted to start a new poll.
Many similar polls have an updated result on the home page, perhaps of the most recent and current polls, could this not be implemented for the HJ poll?
|
Ian L. wrote:
Martyn, Sorry if this was answered in the deleted thread
I haven't deleted a thread, so am as much in the dark as you.
I made the observation that the poll provided by alxnet doesnt seem to be very reliable, often unavailable.
I've noticed that too. But without spending money on authoring our own poll, it's sufficient for our needs. And its virtues, albeit there are few, outweigh its problems.
Also without checking every day there is no way of knowing the result of the poll before it is deleted to start a new poll. Many similar polls have an updated result on the home page, perhaps of the most recent and current polls, could this not be implemented for the HJ poll?
I have screen grabs of each of the final results pages. I'll try to find a way to post them at hj.co.uk.
Martyn [Back Room moderator]
====================
mailto:webmaster@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Thanks for the clarification Martyn,
The earlier Back Room Poll thread got deleted sometime over the weekend by Mark after it went a bit silly I think....it still exists but only as a single message from mark and is readonly.
cheers
Ian
|
|
|
|
Interesting, Martyn.
I certainly could not vote this morning, but perhaps I was having a problem such as others have reported.
We must just hope that there are few repeat voters, or at least, if there are a few, they are on both sides in proportion to the numbers of votes.
Tomo.
|
|
|
Martyn,
I made this suggestion in the other thread but Mark wiped the lot rather than weed out the daft stuff, so I'll make it again:
Is it possible to update the date on the 'main page' for the poll. It is currently showing as last updated in March so you can't tell when a new poll is put up at a glance.
|
SteveH42 wrote:
Martyn, I made this suggestion in the other thread but Mark wiped the lot rather than weed out the daft stuff
Mark doesn\'t have time to weed. If there is rubbish in a thread, unfortunately the good goes out with the bad. I\'m fully behind him on this (in case anyone wants to argue about it): I\'d rather have Mark toss out an occasional casualty than have him so occupied with weeding that he\'s overwhelmed.
Having said that, Steve\'s idea is a good one and worth rescuing (since it\'s come to my attention). In future I\'ll put the date of accession on the Poll post. Thanks.
[PS Thanks, too, to Rob and HF]
Martyn [Back Room moderator]
====================
mailto:webmaster@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Having said that, HF's idea is a good one and worth rescuing (since it's come to my attention). In future I'll put the date of accession on the Poll post. Thanks.
Hi Martyn,
Just to say that the date idea wasn't mine - I don't want to take anyone's glory ;)
HF
|
If you want to discuss Moderation:
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
If you don't want to "speak" to me, e-mail Dave and/or Martyn.
Paranoid conspiracy and persecution theories are better elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
