geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (11/14/89)
As I promised in article <854@pmafire.UUCP>, here are the recent voting
results that I've recorded. This posting just contains the list. I'll
save my own opinions for a follow-up to this article.
The list is sorted alphabetically, and gives the yes, no, and favorable
percentage for each vote.
Group Yes No Percent
----- --- -- -------
comp.infosystems 190 32 85.6
comp.object 884 21 97.7
comp.os.os2 192 28 87.3
comp.sys.m88k 131 6 95.6
comp.sys.mac.hardware 254 22 92.0
rec.org.sca 160 20 88.9
rec.sport.football split 87 33 72.5
sci.aquaria 466 320 59.3
soc.culture.korean 181 32 85.0
soc.culture.latin-america 238 23 91.2
Note: I missed the results of the rec.sport.basketball split, but
believe that it was similar to the *football results. If anyone wants
to send me those results, along with any other recent votes I've missed,
I'll add them to the list.
--
Geoff Allen
{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff
ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoffgeoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (11/14/89)
In article <855@pmafire.UUCP> I write: > >Group Yes No Percent >----- --- -- ------- >comp.infosystems 190 32 85.6 >comp.object 884 21 97.7 >comp.os.os2 192 28 87.3 >comp.sys.m88k 131 6 95.6 >comp.sys.mac.hardware 254 22 92.0 >rec.org.sca 160 20 88.9 >rec.sport.football split 87 33 72.5 >sci.aquaria 466 320 59.3 >soc.culture.korean 181 32 85.0 >soc.culture.latin-america 238 23 91.2 The first thing that I find interesting about these results is that almost all of the groups got 20-30 no votes. It didn't seem to matter if the yesses were 884 (comp.object) or 160 (rec.org.sca). This would seem to support Peter's contention that yes and no votes on the net are unrelated. The only group that would have failed by the 100 no vote criterion is sci.aquaria. The only group that would have failed a 2/3 majority criterion is (surprise!) sci.aquaria. (Excluding the rec.sport.football split, which failed the yes > no + 100 criterion.) It seems to me that the 2/3 majority requirement is a good one. Every group but sci.aquaria easily meets this requirement. I also like the multivoting scheme (MAUVE?) being discussed recently, but that's another matter, I suppose. -- Geoff Allen \ I don't speak for WINCO or DOE, {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ and they don't speak for me. ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \
stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) (11/17/89)
In <856@pmafire.UUCP> gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan) said: >Summary: 2/3 looks like a good idea >[...] >The first thing that I find interesting about these results is that >almost all of the groups got 20-30 no votes. It didn't seem to matter >if the yesses were 884 (comp.object) or 160 (rec.org.sca). This would >seem to support Peter's contention that yes and no votes on the net are >unrelated. In fact, no votes are unrelated to the proposed group name and charter. This indicates that no votes are meaningless in selecting groups that are interesting to people and have an appropriate name. Even the aquaria vote, the exception, supports this point. This is evidence of a defect in the guidelines. Most importantly they treat the creation of groups as a zero sum game where there must be winners and losers. A good argument could be made that creation of new groups is of benefit to all users, since it increases support for the net as a whole. If the guidelines are not changed to reflect the nature of payoffs on the net, then we will continue to see disruptive controversies. Reading of comments received with groupware "no" votes, certainly supports the the Summary line of this post. No votes often reflect misunderstanding, ignorance, or just not being serious. I will post a selection after the groupware vote is completed (with names removed to protect the "innocent"). -- David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: <stodol@diku.dk> Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/26/89)
In article <4980@freja.diku.dk> stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) writes: > In fact, no votes are unrelated to the proposed group name and charter. In fact NO votes are most closely related to the name. > Most importantly they treat the creation of groups as a zero sum > game where there must be winners and losers. Not a zero-sum game, but there may be losers. A badly named group decreases the utility of the news system overall. My problem with .groupware is mainly with the second half of the name. It's kind of non-obvious what this refers to. Anyone remember net.columbia? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (12/05/89)
news.admin's own stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) said:
-
-In fact, no votes are unrelated to the proposed group name and charter.
Really? Whenever I vote no on a newsgroup it's *because* of the name and/or
the charter. Either the name is completely wrong (whether it be a domain
that's wrong [sci.skeptic] or a descriptive name) or the charter is against
what I want to see on the net (soc.personals).
You'll get no votes with any sort of voting system, simply because you need
an option to stop the formation of a bad group; no matter how reasonable the
name is.
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
"Can you keep a secret?"
"I'm a GENTLEMAN. Of *course* I can't keep a secret."
- from Cerebus #125stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) (12/10/89)
For vote stats to be meaningful, an adequate sample must be available. Any voting method will pass some proposals that are bad and not pass some that are good. The recently presented vote stats contained a single proposal that did not pass. This certainly gives no basis for any statistical conclusion. And what conclusion one can draw, will depend in part upon whether one feels that the group that did not pass was a good proposal or not. This in turn will be determined by what period is covered by the stats. Thus, the conclusion is totally irrelevant to the guidelines used. And no conclusion about the current guidelines can be supported by such stats. This is not to indicate that the author of the stats rigged the results. One simply is in error to try to draw such a conclusion on the basis of such a small sample, especially if it is so unbalance as to have a single instance of one of the categories. Statistically speaking, there is no way to determine how large the measurement error is, in such a situation. However, the question of whether "no" votes are independent of the proposal could be answered, especially if one analyzes the data before it is summarized. If "no" votes are for the most part transmitted by the same people (supported by casual observation), then this would be further evidence for this hypothesis. If "no" votes are independent of the proposal, the same results could be achieve by eliminating "no" votes and changing the current guidelines to, for instance, "Yes > 130". -- David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: <stodol@diku.dk> Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (12/14/89)
According to stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky): >If "no" votes are independent of the proposal, the same results could be >achieve by eliminating "no" votes and changing the current guidelines to, >for instance, "Yes > 130". Every absurd idea has its champion. It is incredible to me that anyone could observe and compare the votes on comp.lang.perl and sci.aquaria, and yet continue to believe that "no" votes are independent of newsgroup proposal. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."