--- In c4countdown@yahoogroups.com,
"noel_edmonds2002" <noel_edmonds2002@y...> wrote:
>
> The creator of the very badly designed
> "Edmonds vs Lynam" poll replies: <snip>

Actually Andrew, the only reference(s) to any poll
allegedly being "badly designed" was made by Gary
Male - not myself. Criticisms that were themselves
IMO more "badly designed" than anything contained
within either my own poll or Andrew's poll.

And IIRC, Gary's descriptions of an allegedly "badly
designed" poll only targets my own poll - not Andrew's.

-----------

> By setting up the poll in the simple manner that
> I did,I foolishly didn't realise that I was
> restricting anyone's right to voice their opinion.

I have not actually stated that you or your poll
*restricted* the rights of others.

What I have tried to do instead is to point out
that your poll Andrew failed to OFFER CERTAIN
EXTRA OPPORTUNITES to people (like being able to
vote for Digance or O'Connor). Those opportunities
were only made available later on - when I created
my own poll.

------------

> 2. I didn't include Tom O'Connor purely because
> he indeed was not in the running for host,
> therefore thought it would be pointless to
> vote for someone who was highly unlikely to
> get the job. That doesn't restrict people from
> posting a message to say that Tom should have
> been included in the screen tests.

> I thought that they could use the message board
> for this while we could have a general feeling
> from the group as to who should take the chair.

What is sauce for the goose (by allowing people
to vote for Noel Edmonds as new Countdown host),
should IMO be sauce for the Tom O'Connor gander.
That doesn't just mean allowing people to have
the opportunity to just *say* that they'd like
to see Tom O'Connor in the Countdown host's chair
or being given an audition - it means allowing
them to VOTE for him too.

Tom has probably had more support & favourable
mentions than most of the other names anyone may
care to mention. And he was IMO every bit as
much deserving of a chance to audition as any
of Digance / Edmonds / Lynam. Hence my decision
to include Tom in the vote (but nobody else)
alongside the other 3 auditioners.

> Apologies for this message, I was just a bit
> pissed off that my poll, intended to be a
> light reflection on the situation, was
> dissected in such a way.
>
> Andrew.

Noted Andrew.

As Andrew has said himself, HIS POLL was
intended as a light reflection on the situation,
and not as something to be dissected in detail.

However, MY POLL *was* intended to allow much
deeper analysis of the raw data to produce
much more in-depth analysis of the votes cast.

Something which those people who wasted their
votes by voting for the "This is the nearly
same as the last poll" option ought to think
carefully about.

-------------

The raw data from my poll deserves to be
put under the microscope by those people who
UNDERSTAND and APPRECIATE how the poll works.

However, those people who *don't* fully
understand or appreciate how a poll will work
would do well to remember this in future.
THEIR OWN INABILITY, to so far find a good
reason for doing things in a certain way,
should not be used to automatically assume
that one or more of those same good reasons
do not (or can not) possibly exist.

The creator of a poll just MIGHT have a
whole host of perfectly good reasons for
doing things in a certain particular way,
none of which have occurred to you yet.
So wouldn't it be a good idea to ASK THE
CREATOR of a poll to explain things to you
*before* doing summat like adding extra
voting options??

And that instead of tinkering with a poll
which they don't fully understand, it would
be a helluva lot more courteous and respectful
to the poll's creator if they actually ASKED
for an explanation of things *before* making
changes to the poll.

Followed up showing the courtesy to ASK THE
CREATOR before they go tinkering with a poll.
And reminding everyone whose votes may now
have been deleted that they will now need to
cast their votes again.

Or, at the very least, showing enough courtesy
to state "Excuse me for the fact that I've
amended your c4countdown poll, but ...."

----------------

> A better way to design your poll would have
> simply to vote for one out of the four choices,
> or vote for multiple ones.

Errr ... then why didn't you go & do multiple
votes and other more complex stuff like that with
YOUR OWN poll Andrew??! (Zef scratches his yed).

----------------

> 4. Precise is one word to describe your poll.
> Complicated is another.

A more precise explanation of the reasons why
my poll was set up as it has been will follow.

But after that, failure or unwillingness in
others to understand what I have already tried
to explain to them ought to be considered as a
sign of shortcomings that may well not be my own.


Zef

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

> > ------------------
> >
> >
> > Zef replies:-
> >
> > Despite the fact that there was recently a poll for
> > "Edmonds vs Lynam", there are several IMO good reasons
> > for holding this poll as well.
> >
> > 1) The previous "Edmonds vs Lynam" poll did not
> > offer the chance to vote for the 3rd of the
> > 3 people at the recent audition, Richard Digance.
> > This poll does.
> >
> > 2) The previous "Edmonds vs Lynam" poll did not
> > offer the opportunity to vote for Tom O'Connor,
> > several people's absolute 1st choice to be
> > offered/auditioned for the host's job - who
> > was therefore IMO a surprise omission from the
> > group of people who were auditioned recently.
> > This poll offers that opportunity to us all.
> >
> > 3) The previous "Edmonds vs Lynam" poll did not
> > offer the chance for people to say who their 2nd
> > choice from these 4 leading candidates would be.
> > This poll allows people the chance to say that.
> >
> > By the act of casting a vote for those original
> > options, each of those 15 people has in effect
> > expressed a wish that we *should* all be allowed
> > the opportunity to vote in this particular poll.
> > Wishes that surely deserve not to be ignored.
> >
> > 4) By setting up this particular poll, I gave
> > every member of this forum the opportunity to
> > vote upon this precise matter of choosing from
> > R. Digance vs N. Edmonds vs D. Lynam vs T. O'Connor.
> >
> > Far from that being of absolutely no interest to
> > anyone else, at least 15 other people have already
> > shown an interest in taking that opportunity -
> > regardless of any late switches of vote which may
> > yet take place. And there may yet be several more
> > Countdown fans who will also take advantage of the
> > chance to vote for one of the original options
> > before this poll closes.
> >
> > Zef