What types of magic should there be in the BRCS?

[geeman]

At 04:44 PM 3/14/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

]

>I`m going to post a follow-up poll with the top 2 choices to see how

>things fall when there are fewer choices to make.



That seems like a very reasonable way to handle the results of the

polling. A poll with as many options as possible becoming what is,

effectively, a run-off kind of election sort of thing. In the absence of a

clear victor the options with the fewer votes are eliminated so that those

who voted for a less popular option can still get a voice in the final

result and the choices can be more clearly delineated.



I`d also suggest that either before a polls is started there should be some

discussion of the issue in order to get as many of the possibilities as

possible outlined for the poll, or anything more than a few votes for

"Other" should trigger a rewrite of the poll automatically since it seems

as if "Other" votes by definition are about things not expressed in the

existing options that should be part of it. If the "Other" voter then

posts a viable choice for the poll then it would seem logical to assume

that the poll itself is incomplete and should be revisited.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Mar 14 2005, 02:00 PM
At 04:44 PM 3/14/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:

]

>I`m going to post a follow-up poll with the top 2 choices to see how

>things fall when there are fewer choices to make.



That seems like a very reasonable way to handle the results of the

polling. A poll with as many options as possible becoming what is,

effectively, a run-off kind of election sort of thing. In the absence of a

clear victor the options with the fewer votes are eliminated so that those

who voted for a less popular option can still get a voice in the final

result and the choices can be more clearly delineated.



I`d also suggest that either before a polls is started there should be some

discussion of the issue in order to get as many of the possibilities as

possible outlined for the poll, or anything more than a few votes for

"Other" should trigger a rewrite of the poll automatically since it seems

as if "Other" votes by definition are about things not expressed in the

existing options that should be part of it. If the "Other" voter then

posts a viable choice for the poll then it would seem logical to assume

that the poll itself is incomplete and should be revisited.



Gary

There have been ample opportunities for people to express their opinions regarding "other". That is why I say be as specific as possible and keep thepolls running for at least 2 weeks.

As far as when "Other" becomes a large percentage, that does indeed trigger a "new" poll. I believe that is what will end up happening with the duration of a round poll since "other" is currently running rather high in the results.


I only consider the results definitive when there is a clear majority result in the poll. That is one option is more than twice the number of the next closest.


I have been very consistent in interpretation of poll results so far, at least I believe I have been.

That is one of the things people have said when the confidence vote for editior in chief was run.

[geeman]

At 08:14 PM 3/14/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>There have been ample opportunities for people to express their opinions

>regarding "other". That is why I say be as specific as possible and keep

>thepolls running for at least 2 weeks.

>

>As far as when "Other" becomes a large percentage, that does indeed

>trigger a "new" poll. I believe that is what will end up happening with

>the duration of a round poll since "other" is currently running rather

>high in the results.



As has been recently pointed out, people are not going to sift through all

the posts in order to find one that might present a viable "Other" option,

and it`s not reasonable to expect one person to devise a poll that covers

all those options just out of the blue. Instead, they`ll vote for the

options presented. Either some discussion before the poll, or redoing the

poll when a new option is presented are going to create polls that are

complete.



>I have been very consistent in interpretation of poll results so far, at

>least I believe I have been.

>

>That is one of the things people have said when the confidence vote for

>editior in chief was run.



Well, I`m afraid that`s a pretty good example of not interpreting a poll

very well. That particular poll had nothing to do with interpreting the

results of other polls. It`s easier (and more sensible) to interpret the

results of that polls as people indicating that they would like someone (no

other person was listed as an option) to continue working on an

update. That`s not the same as saying that the poll results have been well

devised and accurately interpreted.



Gary