About polls

[Adagio]

Personally I love polls, that's why I made I was interested to hear what others think of polls...Like to hear if the poll is something which needs to be done more to, or if the other things on the site is more important

[ColdWizard]

where's the choice for "I don't care"?

[loinburger]

I can see some uses being able to select multiple choices in a poll. For example, let's say I started a poll in the Civ III section, "Which three English leaders do you want Firaxis to make animations for?" The choices are Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Henry V, Victoria, Elizabeth II, Charles I, Richard III, Richard II, Thatcher, and Churchill. This poll would be impossible if people couldn't make more than one selection; if they could make multiple selections then the poll would have ten choices, but if they couldn't then the poll would have eighty-one choices (for example, "Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Henry V" and "Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Victoria" would be separate choices).

Of course, people could also make an OT poll "What is your favorite food, choose only 4" and all 10 choices would be "Banana", but so what? This really isn't very different from the poll "What is your favorite food, choose only 1" with all 10 choices as "Banana", so allowing for multiple-choice polls wouldn't cause any more "harm" single-choice polls.

[Adagio]

Exactly, the only negative thing about it that someone has to make it

[Mercator]

Technophile, instead of having people choose 3 leaders, you let everyone pick 1, and the 3 with the most votes "win".
Furthermore, that multiple-choice poll should restrict people to only be able to make 3 choices. Do you want to let people pick only 1 or 2? After all, some might think there only are 2 leaders worth getting a spot. And I suppose you wouldn´t want anyone to pick 4 or more, right?
Multiple-choice polls could come in multiple variants. Polls with one possible number of choices to be made, polls with a maximum number of choices, polls with a minimum and maximum of choices... And this is not only a problem for those writing the script to add these features, but will also unnecessarily confuse poll-voters.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Mercator
but will also unnecessarily confuse poll-voters.

How can it confuse the voters? If they just want to choose one leader they pick one leader (as it is now), if they want to pick more leaders, let them pick more leaders...There is no way that could make it more confusing than it is!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Mercator
Technophile, instead of having people choose 3 leaders, you let everyone pick 1, and the 3 with the most votes "win".

It wouldn't be the same. Some leaders might be everybody's 2nd choice but not make it as a 1st choice (Churchill and Thatcher come to mind; people might want to be able to make a leader transition from, say, Elizabeth I to Churchill, but would not want to be led by Chuchill during the stone age).

Come to that, it might also be interesting if it were possible to weight responses (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice), although I imagine that this would be a much more complicated matter than allowing multiple selections.

Furthermore, that multiple-choice poll should restrict people to only be able to make 3 choices. Do you want to let people pick only 1 or 2? After all, some might think there only are 2 leaders worth getting a spot. And I suppose you wouldn´t want anyone to pick 4 or more, right?

I wouldn't consider it much of a sacrifice if there were no minimum response (if people could make only 1 or 2 selections even though the poll allows them to make 3 choices).

I encountered another use for a multiple-selection poll. On the OT forum I had a poll "What is your current marital status?", but found that there was no satisfactory way to include the "Divorced" and "Widow(er)" choices. Somebody who is divorced and remarried has a much different marital status than somebody who is divorced and single, but I would have exceeded the 10 choice limit had I included "Divorced and remarried," "Divorced and engaged," etc on the poll. However, if the poll were a multiple-selection poll (where people could choose either 1 or 2 responses) then I could have included "Divorced" and "Widow(er)" as choices; those who were, for example, divorced and remarried could then select both "Divorced" and "Married" from the list.

A multiple-selection poll could be used in this way to add qualifiers to a poll. (In the "marital status" poll example I realize that in a multiple-selection poll it would be possible for somebody to choose both Married and Single, which really doesn't make any sense. While it would be nice if vBB code could allow the poll creator to decide which answers are nonsensical, I by no means consider this a necessity or even a priority; people are going to make nonsensical responses to a poll regardless of whether the poll is single-selection or multiple-selection, since all they have to do is lie.)

[Mercator]

Originally posted by ADG


How can it confuse the voters? If they just want to choose one leader they pick one leader (as it is now), if they want to pick more leaders, let them pick more leaders...There is no way that could make it more confusing than it is!

Multiple kinds of multiple-choice polls (with different maximums and minimums) would be confusing as users would certainly get lost on what kind they were currently voting on.
Another thing, with multiple-choice polls, the results will be less intuitive, since the number of votes in the graph will not be the same as the number of participants.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Mercator
Multiple kinds of multiple-choice polls (with different maximums and minimums) would be confusing as users would certainly get lost on what kind they were currently voting on.
Another thing, with multiple-choice polls, the results will be less intuitive, since the number of votes in the graph will not be the same as the number of participants.

I think the way it is now (1 vote) should be standard when creating a poll, this way it will only change for the polls with more votes. I don't say there should be more than 2 votes per person, 2 votes would be ok. But when it is posible to have 2 votes then both votes should be used. This means you can't vote unless you have checked 2 checkboxes

[Mercator]

Originally posted by technophile


It wouldn't be the same. Some leaders might be everybody's 2nd choice but not make it as a 1st choice (Churchill and Thatcher come to mind; people might want to be able to make a leader transition from, say, Elizabeth I to Churchill, but would not want to be led by Chuchill during the stone age).

I seriously doubt that. There are enough people on these forums to have diferent opinions. So there is bound to be more than one popular choice.

Come to that, it might also be interesting if it were possible to weight responses (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice), although I imagine that this would be a much more complicated matter than allowing multiple selections.

This wouldn´t have the desired effect at all, and only makes single choice polls a better option. Without the weighting, people would need to pick their 3 best which best represents the fact that there will eventually be 3 "finalists". With the weighting, one of the three will have the highest weight, meaning you´re reverting back to something close to a one choice poll.

I wouldn't consider it much of a sacrifice if there were no minimum response (if people could make only 1 or 2 selections even though the poll allows them to make 3 choices).

But you do feel the need for a maximum of 3, right? And in some cases you can imagine there might be a need for a minimum, right? That brings me back to the argument of clarity, and to some degree implementation and representation difficulty.

I encountered another use for a multiple-selection poll. On the OT forum I had a poll "What is your current marital status?", but found that there was no satisfactory way to include the "Divorced" and "Widow(er)" choices.

AFAIK, "Divorced" and "Widow(er)" aren´t a marital status. If someone has divorced in the past, his/her marital status is simply what it is now, so one of the options single/married/dating/engaged etc. The same for Widow(er). If the person in question wants to clarify his/her past marital status (s)he´s free to explain that in the thread if need be.

A multiple-selection poll could be used in this way to add qualifiers to a poll. (In the "marital status" poll example I realize that in a multiple-selection poll it would be possible for somebody to choose both Married and Single, which really doesn't make any sense. While it would be nice if vBB code could allow the poll creator to decide which answers are nonsensical, I by no means consider this a necessity or even a priority; people are going to make nonsensical responses to a poll regardless of whether the poll is single-selection or multiple-selection, since all they have to do is lie.)

Indeed, allowing people to disallow certain combinations would not only be difficult to implement, but creating a poll would become a rather tedious job and not worth the effort.
There will always be cheating, I know, but making such polls would make it extremely attractive. And sometimes an added "banana" option in single choice polls can lure those "liars" away.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by ADG


I don't say there should be more than 2 votes per person, 2 votes would be ok.

WHAT? Just two, I wanna have three for my leaders poll I tell ya! (just anticipating technophile )

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Mercator
(just anticipating technophile )

I also want Civ III to be a FPS.

I survived just fine without polls, and I'll survive just fine without multiple-selection polls. Besides, neither of the Admins has made any comment, which I can only assume means that the issue is dead in the water.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by technophile
Besides, neither of the Admins has made any comment, which I can only assume means that the issue is dead in the water.

I asume that too, but it sounds like you say it makes the forum worse...but there's no way it can make the forum worse by adding features like that, as I said the only negative thing about it is that someone has to make it

:banned: :banned: :banned: :banned: :banned:

[Ecthy]

ROTFLMAO @ Gravy Davey (sp?, egal)

well, I think multiple options are cool, a ranking system would be neat as well

[Adagio]

A Ranking system? Could you please explain what you mean by that? Do you mean like 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc..?