peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/26/89)
(a) The vote was not posted to news.groups. Just the results.
(b) The vote was conducted in such a way to split the vote. It was
obviously "sci.aquaria" versus the world.
> >sci.aquaria 16
> >rec.aquarium 5
> >rec.aquaria 11
> >rec.fish 1
> >rec.aquariums 1
As a "sci.*" versus "rec.*" vote, sci loses 18-16. This is hardly
conclusive.
--
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of 'U`
mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (11/01/89)
In article <6686@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >sci.aquaria 16 > >> >rec.aquarium 5 >> >rec.aquaria 11 >> >rec.fish 1 >> >rec.aquariums 1 > >As a "sci.*" versus "rec.*" vote, sci loses 18-16. This is hardly >conclusive. I don't believe the number of people that have been putting forthe the same BS. Didn't ANY of you take basic logic or probability classes? You can't total the rec. votes because you don't know they are additive. The person calling for the 'rec.aquarium' vote made it very clear that he is opposed to rec.aquaria due to its 'new age' connotations. I'm know that a number of people who are in favor of rec.aquaria would vote no on rec.aquarium. As a matter of fact, you don't know what the second choice of ANY of the votes are. You are just assuming that anyone who voted for rec.x would also vote yes on rec.y and no on sci.z. Which all goes to show the basic flaw in the 'vote for one of the below' voting when you have more than 2 possibilities. Which I why I made the proposal that Usenet adopt the 'vote for any of the below that you find acceptable' voting scheme. I've been amused to note that it is even being referred to as the 'Alien scheme' now, I never followed the debate past the one posting and thought I would have been forgotten by now. However, I think that it is silly to debate a poll with such a low sample size (especially since the votes that Richard are getting are over an order of magnitude larger in number) - and it would certainly be silly to delay the vote waiting for Usenet to decide on a new voting scheme (which they may never do). I wish Richard luck, but I'll believe it when I see it. I've seen the rather extreme measures that his opponents have been using to stuff the ballot with 'NO' votes, Richard's rather feeble attempts pale by comparison. And, of course, it is always easier to get basically uninterested people to vote against something of non-general interest than it is to get them to vote yes.