Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: ...

  1. #31
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    7,280

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    [/quote]only because you are such a nice fellow.
    [/quote]

    i can be.

    glad you've decided to drop it. there wasn't much to drop. mainly just nothing to continue.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    ^
    oh now don't go tempting me! i love a good flamewar!

    Traveller, there is no path. You make the path as you walk. -- A. Machado

  3. #33

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    Quote Originally Posted by pluran
    replying but not discussing.

    I don't really get it. Liquid hasn't said a single inflammatory thing in this thread. It is indeed very possible that the numbers could have naturally occurred in the manner they did. There is always a margin of error with all types of polls; the Internet is not much different than most other mediums of polling. I do indeed believe Egoiste has a much bigger following than Habit Rouge on this forum, and I feel the poll (accurately) reflects that. The polls here aren't hard and fast rules or guidelines, nor should they be, but I do believe they reflect community consensus and general opinion, which is, of course, their intended goal.

    As for the fixing of the polls, I believe the very idea is ludicrous, and completely unsubstantiated.

    Do you really feel the change in numbers on this specific poll were that outrageous and unprecedented?

  4. #34
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    7,280

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    did you actually read my posts? read my last extended post about this matter.

    where does it say i think the poll was fixed? it does NOT say that.

    did you see the part that mentioned egoiste had acquired 8 votes in a short time period and habit rouge none? whereas before the vote was very close...12-7, a few hours later the vote was 20-7.

    there are variables. but they are not likely to have been responsible for this rapid jump. that's just common sense. no matter what your knowedge of polls.

    no one will know so it's futile to talk about it.

    i think you need to read everything i wrote. what you are perceiving regarding this issue and what i wrote are not the same thing. this often happens in these situations.

    has this become tedious? to say the least.

    keep up the polls. they're informative and inspiring. and fun!

  5. #35
    Dependent
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    3,579

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    I always liked Monty Python's Flying Circus.

  6. #36

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    First, I don't believe 12-7 is close, at all; in fact, it means that 71 percent more Basenoter's prefer Egoiste.
    That is almost a landslide.

    <<The prior statistical average was a completely different animal. If one were doing statistics, this kind of
    rapid jump would be considered almost impossible.>>


    That is completely incorrect, on many levels. Because there were so few votes, that kind of rapid change is not
    only possible, but also relatively common. When you take into account the variables involved with this specific poll,
    this jump is actually predictable. Those variables are numerous, but most importantly is the fact that basenoters
    generally vastly prefer Egoiste to Habit Rouge. You'd be surprised what overwhelming numbers like that can do to
    a poll. If we were dealing with over single and low double digit numbers, you'd have more of a case, but, as it stands, there is absolutely nothing statistically impossible, or even improbable about the poll in question. What is going on is basic statistical bias. If you want to read more about statistical bias, here is a good link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_bias


    <<This is just one of many reasons why I don't put any stock whatsoever in online polls. Who's doing the voting? How many computers, ISP #'s does one person have, etc etc etc.>>

    This is a problem with any kind of poll. I would strongly suggest, given your concerns, that you not put much stock
    into most polls. It's very difficult to have the 'perfect' poll that contains no statistical bias. If one is to put any stock
    in polls, one should understand the fundamentals of polling and statistics in general. The Egoiste Vs. Habit Rouge
    poll was in no way skewed: you learned which fragrance was preferred by voting basenotes members. And, it just
    so happens that the outcome of that poll is congruent with the basenotes general consensus (From my own observation and the observation of other members I have talked to).

    Also, I am not sure what you mean by ISP #'s? Do you mean people are purchasing new static IP's or trying frantically to get new, unique IP's from their ISPs DHCP Server? Or maybe, people are scouring the internet for hours on end looking for public proxy servers so they can spend hours skewing the results in favor of their favorite fragrance? I don't even know what to say in regards to that kind of paranoia. That is akin to saying people are getting multiple phone numbers so they can skew polls conducted by telephone. Sure, it can happen, but you have to look at motivating factors.


    <<the fact is that one person or group of people can run the numbers up drastically if they want. that's just the way it is.>>

    The same thing can happen in any poll, over any medium. Statistical corruption can happen by numerous means. Once again, It is incredibly important to look at the motivating factors behind such a deliberate corruption. In this case, I don't believe there are any motivating factors for any members to create such a corruption of statistical data.


    <<Did you read my first post?! Do people fix polls? Call it what you want, running up the numbers, etc etc etc. That doesn't mean it's fixed. That would be predetermined.>>

    Now, I am confused. You don't believe the poll was fixed or intentionally corrupted, so then why shouldn't we put any stock in the polls result? I don't get where your bone of contention is with the specific poll. First, you stated the increase was a statistical improbability, but then you say it wasn't fixed. What exactly are you saying? I just can't grasp what you are trying to say here. What, then, caused this statistical 'impossibility' if it wasn't a deliberate corruption?

    Also, I don't believe members put too much stock into basenotes polls. I believe you are making a mountain out of an ant hill. You seem to be the only member here that is taking these polls seriously, which I find incredibly ironic given the content of your posts in this thread.


    <<but I am saying that a lot of people here DO take the polls seriously and it would be good for them to remember that the results are often misleading.>>

    Do you care to back that statement up? I think polls carry very little weight here. I believe, as other members have pointed out, that polls exist primarily for fun. You seem to be the only person not having fun with them.

    <<And YES, they can be tilted intentionally very easily..............JUST FOR FUN!>>

    I don't know about you, but I don't call creating new accounts, scouring the internet for proxy servers, and
    taking other precautions very 'fun'. Creating new accounts alone (A sloppy method) is already a pain in the ass
    and I am sure grant would notice multiple signups under the same IP. So, then, finding a good chunk of proxy servers and manually changing browser proxy settings constantly just to skew basenotes poll results is, IMHO, far from fun. But, then again, I'm not all that hip on what is fun these days.


    <<It doesn't matter what the poll is for - entertainment, politics, etc. Online polls cannot be trusted>>

    I firmly believe polls can be trusted for entertainment. I am sure most people here agree with me.
    Online polling is pretty much as accurate as other methods of polling, really. The blanket statements you are making show an unwarranted fear and lack of understanding of the internet. Internet polls can be just as accurate as polling through other means.

    <<The only reason I mentioned it is to create awareness.>>

    I don't believe your 'insight' was needed on this matter. I believe you are concerned over a non-issue.

    <<I am confident that it will still be hard for you to understand. This thread seems to have taken on a
    serious tone to you. But I don't find it serious at all. It's just a part of the game.>>


    Huh? Did you take your haldol today?

    <<GET OVER YOURELVES! Get out and seek adventure if you're able. The only reason I'm not is becausee
    my body is busted up and I'm unable to for another couple of months.>>


    Haldol sounds like it might help you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldol

  7. #37
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    7,280

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    That's a lot to reply to. And for what? I already said what I had to say. I don't recall insulting you directly in the process. I expected more from a moderator, ex-moderator, whatever.

    That must have taken a lot of effort. I commend you on your endurance.

    I find this quote from Mark Twain applicable to your last post:

    "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you would like."


  8. #38

  9. #39

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    <<That's a lot to reply to. And for what? I already said what I had to say. I don't recall insulting you directly in the process. I expected more from a moderator, ex-moderator, whatever.>>


    I've been told I am a rather prolific writer. It was really no trouble at all. You didn't insult me, per se, but you did have a very insulting and condescending tone throughout the entire thread, and that is probably what made me post. I am not a moderator, nor have I ever been.


    <<I find this quote from Mark Twain applicable to your last post:
    "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you would like.">>


    Huh? If I distorted any facts, please point them out. So far, your posts contain nothing more than sophistry, ill contrived rhetoric, and non sequiturs, to which I have replied with my own opinion. You can reply to and challenge any part of my argument that you see fit, then we can have an intelligent discussion on statistics and basenotes polls, if you'd like.

    This entire time, you haven't really responded reasonably to anyones comments. You simply keep saying things like [ch8220]you obviously haven't understood a word i've said[ch8221] and [ch8220]GET OVER YOURELVES![ch8221]

    <<You just react emotionally. I understand. I would have to when I was younger. >>

    I think you've reacted more emotionally than anyone else in this thread.

    Maybe I just don't understand, Pluran. Is that the case?


  10. #40

  11. #41
    Dependent pluran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    7,280

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    Quote Originally Posted by IPaidForThisName
    First, I don't believe 12-7 is close, at all; in fact, it means that 71 percent more Basenoter's prefer Egoiste.
    That is almost a landslide.

    <<The prior statistical average was a completely different animal. If one were doing statistics, this kind of
    rapid jump would be considered almost impossible.>>


    That is completely incorrect, on many levels. Because there were so few votes, that kind of rapid change is not
    only possible, but also relatively common. When you take into account the variables involved with this specific poll,
    this jump is actually predictable. Those variables are numerous, but most importantly is the fact that basenoters
    generally vastly prefer Egoiste to Habit Rouge. You'd be surprised what overwhelming numbers like that can do to
    a poll. If we were dealing with over single and low double digit numbers, you'd have more of a case, but, as it stands, there is absolutely nothing statistically impossible, or even improbable about the poll in question. What is going on is basic statistical bias. If you want to read more about statistical bias, here is a good link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_bias


    <<This is just one of many reasons why I don't put any stock whatsoever in online polls. Who's doing the voting? How many computers, ISP #'s does one person have, etc etc etc.>>

    This is a problem with any kind of poll. I would strongly suggest, given your concerns, that you not put much stock
    into most polls. It's very difficult to have the 'perfect' poll that contains no statistical bias. If one is to put any stock
    in polls, one should understand the fundamentals of polling and statistics in general. The Egoiste Vs. Habit Rouge
    poll was in no way skewed: you learned which fragrance was preferred by voting basenotes members. And, it just
    so happens that the outcome of that poll is congruent with the basenotes general consensus (From my own observation and the observation of other members I have talked to).

    Also, I am not sure what you mean by ISP #'s? Do you mean people are purchasing new static IP's or trying frantically to get new, unique IP's from their ISPs DHCP Server? Or maybe, people are scouring the internet for hours on end looking for public proxy servers so they can spend hours skewing the results in favor of their favorite fragrance? I don't even know what to say in regards to that kind of paranoia. That is akin to saying people are getting multiple phone numbers so they can skew polls conducted by telephone. Sure, it can happen, but you have to look at motivating factors.


    <<the fact is that one person or group of people can run the numbers up drastically if they want. that's just the way it is.>>

    The same thing can happen in any poll, over any medium. Statistical corruption can happen by numerous means. Once again, It is incredibly important to look at the motivating factors behind such a deliberate corruption. In this case, I don't believe there are any motivating factors for any members to create such a corruption of statistical data.


    <<Did you read my first post?! Do people fix polls? Call it what you want, running up the numbers, etc etc etc. That doesn't mean it's fixed. That would be predetermined.>>

    Now, I am confused. You don't believe the poll was fixed or intentionally corrupted, so then why shouldn't we put any stock in the polls result? I don't get where your bone of contention is with the specific poll. First, you stated the increase was a statistical improbability, but then you say it wasn't fixed. What exactly are you saying? I just can't grasp what you are trying to say here. What, then, caused this statistical 'impossibility' if it wasn't a deliberate corruption?

    Also, I don't believe members put too much stock into basenotes polls. I believe you are making a mountain out of an ant hill. You seem to be the only member here that is taking these polls seriously, which I find incredibly ironic given the content of your posts in this thread.


    <<but I am saying that a lot of people here DO take the polls seriously and it would be good for them to remember that the results are often misleading.>>

    Do you care to back that statement up? I think polls carry very little weight here. I believe, as other members have pointed out, that polls exist primarily for fun. You seem to be the only person not having fun with them.

    <<And YES, they can be tilted intentionally very easily..............JUST FOR FUN!>>

    I don't know about you, but I don't call creating new accounts, scouring the internet for proxy servers, and
    taking other precautions very 'fun'. Creating new accounts alone (A sloppy method) is already a pain in the ass
    and I am sure grant would notice multiple signups under the same IP. So, then, finding a good chunk of proxy servers and manually changing browser proxy settings constantly just to skew basenotes poll results is, IMHO, far from fun. But, then again, I'm not all that hip on what is fun these days.


    <<It doesn't matter what the poll is for - entertainment, politics, etc. Online polls cannot be trusted>>

    I firmly believe polls can be trusted for entertainment. I am sure most people here agree with me.
    Online polling is pretty much as accurate as other methods of polling, really. The blanket statements you are making show an unwarranted fear and lack of understanding of the internet. Internet polls can be just as accurate as polling through other means.

    <<The only reason I mentioned it is to create awareness.>>

    I don't believe your 'insight' was needed on this matter. I believe you are concerned over a non-issue.

    <<I am confident that it will still be hard for you to understand. This thread seems to have taken on a
    serious tone to you. But I don't find it serious at all. It's just a part of the game.>>


    Huh? Did you take your haldol today?

    <<GET OVER YOURELVES! Get out and seek adventure if you're able. The only reason I'm not is becausee
    my body is busted up and I'm unable to for another couple of months.>>


    Haldol sounds like it might help you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldol

  12. #42
    Dependent
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    3,579

    Default Re: Putting Stock in Poll Results

    I'd like to echo pluran's warning!

    Newcomers, do not buy fragrances based on the results of polls or reviews! I recommend against using the 8 ball, coin flips, fortune tellers and encrypted writings on bathroom walls as well. And since you are newcomers, and I'm an old guy (even older than 40!), you should probably not trust your own nose!

    The best way would be for you to send me money, lots of money, and I will come up with practically guaranteed, nearly infallible advice on what fragrances will smell best on you. That will protect you from the sneaky connivances of poll-fixers and reviewers planted by the industry!

    Always glad to be of service.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000