Survey posted 1999-11-08 00:00 by Andy.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

It seems ticalc is trying to keep from keeping the "anarchy". They explain test 1 but with test 2 just say "total anarchy", which to many people has a bad connotation.

*DING* *DING* *DING* Johnny, tell him what he's won! Now the question is, didn't you expect that in the first place? It's really easy to rig a survey... =P

Yup.

Yeah. For another example of a rigged survey, take...ahem...Dimension TI's survey on removing the old message board. "Should we get rid of the rarely used message board?" Note the rigged language, "rarely used." Well...can someone supply the actual text to the survey?

Interesting that I didn't see it until after the survey was closed.

Don't fall for the rigged survey trap. You don't want a crappy message board like the one on Dimension-TI. :P (Of course, there are other factors, such as posts like this.)

Exactly. Couldn't have said it much better myself. That's why they used it.. because the people that aren't familar with the comment boards won't vote for that one, just because it sounds bad. It's sad ticalc.org will go this far to stretch the poll results.

i think deleting the inappropriate comments is better than deleting the abusive users' profile because those abusive users will come back again with different profile and there is no way to stop them from creating different profiles.

<rant>

I don't like the idea that these boards are being censored. However, I find it very distrubing that TICALC.ORG actually has problems with people (People of the intelect [assuming they have any] that visit and relate to this site) `flaming' and posting irrelevent content. I suppose I would be in favor of choice number 2 (total anarchy), if it's to big of a problem then I am appauled by the mentality of some of the `users' that visit this page. Not only should they be banned from posting on this site, but disembowled. (harsh)

</rant>

- BaSe-2-oP

Anarchy's super, but there's one problem...
Anarchy only works in a Utopia. Any form of government
can and will decay in anything less, but an anarchy will do so more quickly, and will be harder to reverse.
I favor the idea of abusive, overly obscene, or just plain annoying people who advertise their sites relentlessly, type in all caps, you get the idea. Any web page is generally a monarchy, with the webmaster as regent. The 'anarchy' of a message board is really only the regent sitting back and letting what will happen happen. Obviously, if the populace gets out of hand, the monarch will adjust the laws of society as he feels neccessary.

--meek

(error correction)
Erm.. That should be favor the removal of abusive, etc.. etc..

--meek

Actually, I didn't vote. there's not an option for what I'd vote for.

Gimme a check by this:

Leave boards completely unmoderated (lol, anarchy? yea okay buddy), but just put up message subjects... Which would require ppl to put more innovative message subjects to get their message read (unless it's some famous dude posting and everyone flocks to kiss ass or flame).

I guess, it's also cause I'm still on 56k... sigh. 400 comments != fun2download.

-Alan

So you'd read my message but not the others?

Ok I want Anarcy and off the subject I need help with my new page on the ti83+ see webpage. Right now it sucks @$$ and i need some major help. Reply if you are willing to help or if you think my site sucks @$$ too.
Spatz

GO SENIORS!!!!!!!!!!!

--BlueCalx

I thought you hated such off-topic posts like these?

You... you just don't get it, do you?

Levine

Get what?

Personally, I would have like to have seen an "Other system" option in the vote. I still feel That a moderation system would be better than any of the trials that they were considering.

Click on the Web-Page link to see what I mean.

Notice the 4 options:

1.) As it was before - delete inappropriate articles.
2.) As Trial #1 - delete inappropriate articles, remove posting ability from abusive users.
3.) As Trial #2 - total anarchy.
4.) Shut down commenting abilities completely (read-only news).

Look at #3, "TOTAL ANARCHY". This is so misleading, its not even funny. The 2nd trial was NOT total anarchy. They said they would delete obviously inappropriate comments that contained links to porn or comments that contained 5,000 returns. They just used the term "total anarchy" here to give it a bad name, and so the users who aren't familar with the comment baords won't vote for it, and for something else. And of course, the first two options sound better than the 3rd, at least to the average user.

It's really easy to rig a survey in your favor, just change the wording ever-so slightly. It's not very obvious, but its there.

I'm also not surprised ticalc.org didn't put any of the users suggestions in the poll. Frnakly, I would much rather like to see this option:

5.) Limited free speech. Delete only comments that contain excesive amounts of swearing, or inappropriate content such as links to porn or comments that destroy the layout of the page.

But notice, free speech wasn't mentioned at all in either the news item or the poll. How sad.

However, in the end, ticalc.org and its coordinators will get wht they want - moderation with justification for it.

I would advise people not to read too much into the survey wording -- there's no need for us to even attempt to "rig" the poll, since we've already made it clear it will only be one factor in our decision. If you think "total anarchy" has a bad connotation, you're right. I think that accurately reflects the general state of affairs during that particular trial.

What's more, we all know your position; no need to keep repeating it. If you want to talk about trying to sway poll results, advertising certainly falls under that category.

And finally, let me emphasize that the decision will be made by our entire staff, not just certain members. You act like it's injustice for us to do anything that you don't agree with; let me remind you we are operating a web site and you are free to stop visiting if you don't agree with how we do it. It would be one thing if we forced you to visit our site or if we were the only site of this kind, but neither of these is true. If you're as unhappy with how we operate as it appears, I can't imagine why, except for perhaps an extreme fondness for complaining, you don't move along elsewhere.

Chris

You know just as well as everyone else that if the poll shows that a majority of the users want the "total anarchy"/"free speech" option, and you choose moderation instead, it won't sit well with the users. I'm sure you would rather the poll and your decision be consistant. That's the modivation for trying to rig the poll ever so slightly.

Total anarchy does have a bad connotation. That's why you used the term. But its not the right term to use! It's limited free speech, not total anarchy. Try to be more fair, anarchy is the wrong word. I've noticed how in all the news items and stuff, your staff always uses the word "anarchy" and never "free speech". Sounds biased to me.

And what's wrong with the trial? I can tell you don't like it... sure, there have been people that have abused their new responsibility, but that is to be expected. Those cases were kept to a minimum. The comment boards were not radically changed or disrupted.

What does this all have to do with advertising? You aren't advertising anything.

In case you didn't realize this, the coordinators make up over 50% of the active staff. The only non-coordinators who are active are who.. Nick, Phil, Eric, and Nathan? Right, so its exactly 50-50. I have no doubt it will be discussed on the internal mailing list and such, but you know its ultimately up to the coordinators.

I never said it was an injustice to do anything I don't agree with. It's an injustice to delete my comments that aren't against the guidelines, FOR THE ONLY REASON being because the staff doesn't agree with what I'm saying. But obviously you don't care. I hope you are prepared to eat your words, because people will move away to other sites.

I just went back and noticed the results from the POTM survey. 60% of the users voted for the old system where the users both nominate and vote on the programs. Only 27% of the users voted for the current system of ticalc.org selecting the nominees and then the users voting. So there is an obvious case of ticalc.org not following the results of the survey. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened here. If so, whats the point of taking a survey?

they said they were taking a survey, not that they would make any changes based on the results.

Yeah, but the option ticalc.org choose was by far in the minority. They seemed to completely ignore the survey.

these people who are kind enough to give us ticalc are not paid to do this. They are real people who don't have to spend every waking hour trying to please people who may not be completely satisfied with the *free* service they are providing. Either enjoy what you've got and contribute to it; or go make your own website, better than ticalc. <sarcasm>Good luck.</sarcasm>

Ok, maybe I will.

Well, this survey is rigged by wording. However, I'd have to think that every survey is rigged by wording... suppose they had had a choice that contained the words "free speech", I bet a whole bunch of people would have vote for it... I don't think it's really possible to have a totally unbiased survey.