henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/21/89)
Some skeptics expressed some doubts about the strikingly one-sided results that Brad Templeton announced on his opinion survey about the notion of gatewaying rec.humor.funny to and from commercial networks. He asked me to spot-check his survey results. He sent me everything he'd received up to the afternoon of March 14. (Brad informs me that ballots continue to trickle in, with the overall picture unchanged, but I have not verified this myself.) The raw results, counted by my software (not Brad's), are 474 yes, 32 no, 4 "spoiled" ballots (all really "yes" votes, but with the "> survey no" line included from Brad's posting), and 7 blank. My software takes care to ignore multiple votes per ballot, unless they disagree, in which case it designates the ballot "spoiled". I inspected the data by eye. I found no evidence of systematic generation of addresses or other monkey business, but there were a few duplications. (Brad had mentioned this; he hadn't bothered to weed them out because there were too few to affect the result significantly.) I did a systematic search for duplicates, and deleted 7 duplicate ballots: 5 yeses and 2 blank ones. This makes the counts 473 yes, 32 no, 5 blank. I did not systematically examine the data by time of arrival, but a quick check suggests that the cumulative yes:no ratio remained roughly constant throughout. (In particular, the inclusion of late ballots, arriving after Brad's posting of results, does not appear to make a big difference.) I decided to verify roughly 10% of the ballots. A quick hack with a random number generator (seeded by time of day to make it even more thoroughly unpredictable -- the point of this is not high-quality statistical randomness, but merely the fact that Brad couldn't have predicted my choices) selected 52 ballots to be verified. A manual address-munging pass rejected 4 (all "yes" votes) because of complex mixed-mode addresses that I doubted could be mailed to successfully. Of the remainder, 3 were "no" votes and the rest (45) were "yes" votes. 48 confirmation requests went out late in the afternoon of the 15th. As of now (1220 on the 20th), 41 responses have come back. One message bounced, the remaining 7 have not replied for unknown reasons. All 41 responses confirmed that Brad's records were accurate. (Several added lengthy comments, showing that they'd thought about the issues in depth, but I didn't keep track of the specifics.) The missing ones are all "yes"es, by the way -- all three "no"s replied. From this I conclude that the ballots collected by Brad were real and legitimate, and that the 473:32 result is real. There are three possible sources of error that I cannot check in any straightforward way: the possibility that significant numbers of people posted multiple ballots by using different accounts on different machines, the possibility that mail fraud was committed with the same net effect, and the possibility that Brad quietly discarded all but a handful of the "no" ballots. The multiple-voting possibility cannot be entirely ignored, but given the numbers involved and the geographic diversity (even the verification list included people in Europe and Australia (all of whom responded, by the way -- the missing 7 are all USAnians)), it would have been a formidable task to influence the result significantly. Mail fraud would make cheating easier, but the ballots came by a variety of routes, the only major common element being a tendency to converge near the end since Brad's machine has few mail links. As I mentioned above, I hand-munged the addresses for more efficient paths (utzoo is very well connected). Very few of the resulting paths went through any of Brad's neighbors, and the diversity of routes was even greater. There was no obvious common pattern among the addresses of people who did not response to the verification request. Mail fraud on a significant scale is most implausible. As for deliberate discarding of "no" ballots, Brad could have made the results rather less striking, and hence rather more likely to pass unchallenged, by retaining more "no" votes. Whatever one may think of Brad, he's not stupid. Such selective reporting seems unlikely. The response to Brad's survey is abnormally high by Usenet standards already; the hypothesis that there were several hundred more "no" votes just is not credible. Brad tells me that there is at least one case where a known "no" ballot did not reach him, but the fact is that uucp mail is not 100% reliable, and there is no reason to expect that it would discriminate against "no" ballots particularly. Occasional mail losses would be reason for concern if the vote were close, but it's not. It has been alleged that the survey was biased by it being publicized in rec.humor.funny only. I will not comment on this here, except to say that I do not find it credible that non-readers would respond in the truly unprecedented numbers needed to reverse the result. My conclusion is unless implausible sources of bias were present, it is fair and correct to state that the voters support Brad's proposal by a majority of approximately 473 to 32. I further conclude that it is most unlikely that the removal of any credible source of bias could reverse such a lopsided result. I finally conclude that Brad's survey, although perhaps not entirely above reproach on small details, was honestly run, and that the results he announced were at least approximately correct. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (03/21/89)
In article <1989Mar20.181533.22112@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: {A lenghty, detailed, and systematic analysis of the votes that HE says Brad passed on to him} >My conclusion is unless implausible sources of bias were present, it >is fair and correct to state that the voters support Brad's proposal >by a majority of approximately 473 to 32. I further conclude that it >is most unlikely that the removal of any credible source of bias >could reverse such a lopsided result. I finally conclude that Brad's >survey, although perhaps not entirely above reproach on small details, >was honestly run, and that the results he announced were at least >approximately correct. >-- >Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu And of course, since you're a fellow countryman, your count is a lie, totally biased, and you're covering for Brad, since we've all been bombarded with the 'fact' that what Brad is doing is completely against <drum roll> the SPIRIT OF USENET! So, since we KNOW that, we have to suspect you too, and we have to discard this vote. Surely the only way we can get a 'fair' vote is not to have anyone who has any idea what usenet is count, but instead head for our nearest skid row, find a double amputee with a minimal IQ who COULDN'T POSSIBLY have any idea what is going on. Only votes that are approved in advance by the folks against Brad can be sent to this paragon of even- handedness, and even then if the vote goes against Brad we can always just do it again. Heck, do it enough times and no one but the screaming few will even bother to vote - they won't get their 100+ majority, but in the SPIRIT OF USENET they'll proclaim that as the defenders of the the net they have found a 'sense of the net' and that, instead of using the earlier votes, they have NOW found the 'real meaning of all the voters' and begin screaming anew for Brad's removal. Now, for the pinheads that don't detect this already, the above was sarcasm. Henry did more work in his verification than most folks have ever considered doing for the net. His analysis and verification indicates that unless you want to assume that proportionally 473/32 folks are totally in the dark and only a few enlightened people see the horrible actions being perpetrated behind our collective backs, then THERE IS MAJOR SUPPORT FOR BRAD IN THIS ENDEAVOR. Read his article. READ IT CAREFULLY. Then really try to convince yourself that all those folks are just too stupid to understand. If you can do that, then you might begin to wonder what possible reason there is for the folks that keep screaming for 'votes'. And more 'votes'. And more, until they get an outcome they want. Sheesh. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | There is nothing in the above message that can't be explained by sunspots. | | execu!dewey Dewey Henize | | Can you say standard disclaimer? I knew you could. Somehow... | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (03/21/89)
While I deeply appreciate the effort through which Henry put himself to verify Brad's vote, I am disappointed that such an effort was required or even suggested. Brad has been around the Usenet for a *long* time; to suggest now, after 6?7?8? years of Usenet activity, that Brad is merely pushing numbers in his favor is a grave and undeserved insult to his character. --Karl
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/22/89)
In article <1989Mar20.181533.22112@utzoo.uucp> I wrote: >As of now (1220 on the 20th), 41 responses have come back. One message >bounced, the remaining 7 have not replied for unknown reasons... A minor correction to this: the "7" actually includes the bounce, which is why the numbers don't seem to add up to 48. I had the bounce listed as "no reply yet", since it sometimes happens that bounced mail does in fact get through, and forgot to deduct it. My apologies. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (03/23/89)
In the detailed explanation of the audit which took place of the votes for
and against Brad Templeton's proposal, only one possibility was not covered:
that he mistated what would actually be occurring.
If the vote is taken again, and the question phrased more appropriatly, I
am sure the results will be quite different.
The question which should be asked (which Brad did not ask) is --
"Shall Usenet Moderators be permitted to export submissions
given to them by Usenet users off the net and use these
exported submissions on commercial networks?"
Let's make the question correct to begin with, and *then* vote.
--
Patrick Townson
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code)
FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/26/89)
In article <7994@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >In the detailed explanation of the audit which took place of the votes for >and against Brad Templeton's proposal, only one possibility was not covered: >that he mistated what would actually be occurring. My verification was of the vote that took place, not some hypothetical different one with a different question. Note that I barely mentioned the subject of the vote, never mind the exact question that was asked. >If the vote is taken again, and the question phrased more appropriatly, I >am sure the results will be quite different. It depends on what you mean by "appropriately". Phrasing the question without biasing the result is *not* easy. Case in point... >The question which should be asked (which Brad did not ask) is -- > > "Shall Usenet Moderators be permitted to export submissions > given to them by Usenet users off the net and use these > exported submissions on commercial networks?" This does not mention the important fact that Brad's proposal is to do bidirectional gatewaying, i.e. he would also export commercial-network submissions to Usenet. That's *not* a trivial issue; the wording above makes it sound like Usenet is being victimized for the benefit of the commercial network without any compensation. >Let's make the question correct to begin with, and *then* vote. That's easy to say, but not easy to do. The correctness of your proposed wording is questionable, at the very least. Similarly, would you really expect to get the same results from "should moderators be allowed to make money from their Usenet activities?" and "should moderators be compensated for the time and effort they invest in Usenet?"? Picking the "correct" question is itself a contentious issue. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (03/27/89)
In article <1989Mar25.220248.8669@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >It depends on what you mean by "appropriately". Phrasing the question >without biasing the result is *not* easy. Case in point... Of course it is not easy. One reason I suggested to Karl D. that he leave Brad's name out of it as much as possible, if not entirely, is that this is not a question of Brad versus someone else as moderator of r.h.f. It is a Usenet policy question. Its really no one's business what Brad does with his time and energy except when the rest of the net is asked to interconnect with him. The only real question should be how a moderator deals with all those electronic blips which reach him/her from users wishing to post on the topic at hand. It is easy enough for someone to say don't send mail to Brad if you don't like the way he handles what he receives. But I assume the users do not write Brad *voluntarily*, but only because it is the only authorized way to get a joke in the group. With his machine being the only way to post to r.h.f., then it does become the net's business, to a limited extent, what Brad (or any moderator) does with the submissions received. >This does not mention the important fact that Brad's proposal is to do >bidirectional gatewaying, i.e. he would also export commercial-network >submissions to Usenet. That's *not* a trivial issue; the wording above >makes it sound like Usenet is being victimized for the benefit of the >commercial network without any compensation. Well I have yet to see *anything* from Genie posted by Brad indicating the management there intends to honor the bidirectional gatewaying. There has been no written communication from anyone there -- posted by Brad or through some other access point they may have -- promising to honor such a plan. It has been just talk -- one sided talk by Brad -- up to this point. Not a peep from Genie or their attornies or their management. Not even a single joke so far! If Genie seriously wants to go bidrectional with Usenet, let *them* show their intentions also. They can establish Brad with his humor forum over there. Let them offer *us* few jokes via r.h.f. as a show of intentions. I honestly do not think Genie will permit the bidirectional path. In an earlier message, I asked Brad to PROVE IT. If in fact starting tomorrow or sometime soon I see jokes in r.h.f. which are attributed to someone at Genie 'reprinted with permission of Genie' tagged on them, well then I might even ignore the still sort of offensive arrangement and say go ahead with it. >That's easy to say, but not easy to do. The correctness of your proposed >wording is questionable, at the very least. Similarly, would you really >expect to get the same results from "should moderators be allowed to make >money from their Usenet activities?" and "should moderators be compensated >for the time and effort they invest in Usenet?"? Picking the "correct" >question is itself a contentious issue. Yes, it is hard to select exactly the right phraseology. I would have phrased the question a little different than Karl; but I think the question as he has phrased it is certainly understandable. No, I would not expect to get the same results from the 'make money versus be compensated' questions you indicated. But there is a larger chasm or gap between the questions Brad posed in (his poll versus reality) and (money versus compensation). Moderators should not 'make money' from their Usenet related activities. Neither should sysadmins, backbones or others involved. All of the above should probably be compensated for *direct, out of pocket expenses attributible to Usenet*, but not for 'time and effort'. And any compensation for out of pocket expenses should come from the affected users and not the net as a whole. If some site runs up massive phone bills because they have agreed to connect to anyone and everyone, then its understandable that the local phone company has to be paid. The phone company did NOT agree to put their resources at the net's disposal. To some extent, the site and sysadmin did. 'Time and effort' are what Usenet is all about. No compensation available. If sites with plainly distinquishable expenses like phone bills and computer repair costs want to say to their users, 'help pay for these costs' then that should be permitted. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/28/89)
In article <8036@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >...easy enough for someone to say don't send mail to Brad if you don't like >the way he handles what he receives. But I assume the users do not write Brad >*voluntarily*, but only because it is the only authorized way to get a joke >in the group... Uh, somebody is holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to get jokes into r.h.f.? If so, sounds like something the police should investigate. If not, then it sounds voluntary to me. The only sense I can make of your statement is that you think getting jokes into r.h.f. should be a god-given right, so that any requirement for Brad's approval is an imposition that the contributors disapprove of. However, the whole point of r.h.f. (and moderated groups in general) is that getting stuff into it is *not* a right, but a privilege subject to moderator approval. When you buy food, do you take money out of your wallet and give it to the cashier voluntarily, or because it is the only authorized way to buy food? Answer: the money is the price you pay for the food. Similarly, having to get moderator approval is the price you pay for getting stuff into a moderated group. There is nothing wrong with either. >Moderators should not 'make money' from their Usenet related activities. >Neither should sysadmins, backbones or others involved... What about the staff at UUNET? Or the people at other companies whose job is, in part, looking after Usenet? They are very definitely getting paid for Usenet-related activities. What's more, this is a good thing. Volunteer labor tends to burn out far too quickly; to have a network that is stable and dependable, people must get paid for the work done on it. In fact, many seemingly-volunteer workers *do* get paid for it, since they spend paid time on it, sometimes without their bosses' knowledge. >All of the above >should probably be compensated for *direct, out of pocket expenses >attributible to Usenet*, but not for 'time and effort'. Obviously you've never done any consulting or freelance work. Time and effort are very definitely direct expenses -- the supply of either is finite, and for most people, inadequate. And there is a specific cash value associated with them, since they can almost always be spent on something that earns money instead. >And any compensation >for out of pocket expenses should come from the affected users and not the >net as a whole... How do you distinguish the two? I would certainly say that the readers of r.h.f. are "affected users" for Brad's purposes. >'Time and effort' are what Usenet is all about. No compensation available. Anarchy is what Usenet is about. Your statement is a wish, not a fact, and a wish that is not universally shared, at that. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu