SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Local Businesses | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Poll: Should the Jerk Cookout at the Horniman be relocated elsewhere in the future?
This poll is closed.
Yes 32.84% 22 32.84%
No 32.84% 22 32.84%
Keep at Horniman only if transport and security issues are addressed 34.33% 23 34.33%
Total 67 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Topic Closed  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
(Cancelled)
Author Message
admin
Administrator

Posts: 393
Joined: Dec 2002
Post: #21
15-08-2009 10:35 AM

CM - ok with you to go with RO's amendment?
It seems the simplest to me.

Find all posts by this user
Contrary Mary


Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #22
15-08-2009 11:25 AM

>sighs<

In general I agree with robin orton that it doesn't make sense to have a new poll until we have some further information. I can also totally see why robin orton has amended them - it does look simpler (but see below for why it may actually not be)

However, if people feel that it has to go ahead ASAP, then I'm okay with that, if nevermodern also is (was nevermodern's poll in the first place after all!)

But in that case, I would be happier if there was some sort of 'honourable agreement' not to aggregate the categories at all when quoting results (not that I would hold my breath!)

This is because my one concern vis-a-vis robin orton's amendments is that those against the cookout might feel that having 2 'yes' options (one hard 'yes' and one soft 'yes') as against only 1 'no' option automatically biases the result against them, as it allows the 'pro'-camp to combine the two types of 'yes' result and claim a majority in favour, when it is possible that some voters may not have wanted their qualified support to be interpreted in that way. This would of course work in the opposite direction if that 'soft' option were to begin with 'no...' and I have already pointed out the problem with a question which doesn't have 'yes' or 'no' at the beginning. Which is why I put 2 'no' and 2 'yes' options to start with. It does come out a bit messy, but then questions which will produce fair, unambiguous results are, as Nevermodern, LBL and I have all discovered, not quick or easy!

There: now that I have that on record as a concern, feel free to use the amendments, but don't say I didn't warn you when the discussion of results goes off on methodological tangents and misses whatever the point of the results turns out to be.Laugh

robinorton: None of that meant as a criticism - as I said, I can see exactly where you're coming from. I am at a loss myself as to how to balance neutrality and simplicity here, so maybe between us we can work out something which works Smile

perhaps the 5 option question would look simpler if the words 'in principle' were dropped from options 3 and 4?

Find all posts by this user
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #23
15-08-2009 11:56 AM

I think we're in danger of getting ourselves into a pickle over what is, after all, only meant to be a quick straw poll to gauge opinion. Smile I'm happy with whatever (and I don't mean that in a dismissive way)!

Find all posts by this user
Contrary Mary


Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #24
15-08-2009 12:15 PM

I know, I know Rolleyes - But remember all the stuff on the Pools consultation? I can all too easily imagine the kind of 'debate' about what the results of this straw poll actually mean, or don't mean etc etc etc... especially if they are being used as evidence to support passionately held positions in any discussions further down the line. Would seem sensible to try for the least possible ambiguity in the results from the off, that's all I mean.

Find all posts by this user
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #25
15-08-2009 12:24 PM

I don't want to prolong this unnecessarily. But it seems to me that in this sort of choice, 'yes, provided that' is logically the same as 'no, unless'. If I am right, to provide two versions of what is essentially the same response would confuse us potential punters. I suppose a justification for two versions might be that, as Mary is I think implying, that those who are at gut level pro ('yes, provided') could be distinguished from those who are at gut level anti ('no, unless'). But I'm not convinced that would be particularly helpful.

Perhaps we might now leave this to Admin? Perhaps s/he might impose a (short) deadline for further comments and then decide whether to go ahead, and, if so, using which questions, on the basis of the views which have been expressed.

Find all posts by this user
Contrary Mary


Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #26
15-08-2009 12:36 PM

Admin:

Think RO's suggestion is a very good one. I am well aware this could go on ad infinitum, ad nauseum otherwise. At least this way, no one could complain that they weren't given a chance of having some input before whatever 'awful, misrepresentative' question ends up being posted! Laugh

I might have a couple of alternative formats. I will come back with them later this afternoon, after which, I will shut up and let everyone else decide.

RO: you're right, it's a thing about 'gut level'. Am attempting to avoid people feeling that they have been 'forced' into a more positive or negative statement than they wanted to make, purely because there wasn't another available option. Feel that's a trick best left to Facebook quizzes! Laugh

Find all posts by this user
Contrary Mary


Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #27
15-08-2009 02:15 PM

Okay - Final attempts:

If either of these (and particularly the first one) are used, it is important that the sections in red are included. The first is simpler, but runs the risk that people will ignore the advisory note. The second is potentially less clear, but also potentially produces less ambiguous results. I am hoping that reordering the options and tidying up the phrasing has made it a bit easier to understand.

A)

Should the Jerk Cookout be at Horniman Gardens?
(PLEASE READ ALL 4 OPTIONS, AND ACCOMPANYING NOTE, BEFORE VOTING)

1) Yes, definitely.
2) No, definitely not
3) Only with effective crowd, traffic and parking controls
4) Don't know/can't decide "

NOTE: *IMPORTANT* : A vote for #3 should not be regarded as either a 'yes' or 'no' vote by other means. Results from #3 are NOT to be aggregated to any other category in analyses of this poll.

2)

Should the Jerk Cookout be at Horniman Gardens?
(PLEASE READ ALL 5 OPTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE VOTING)

1) Yes, definitely.
2) Yes, but with effective crowd, traffic and parking controls
3) No, definitely not
4) No, not unless there are effective crowd, traffic and parking controls
5) Don't know/can't decide


So there y'go. Use, amend, chuck out and start again - whatever is best. Thumbup
I am happy to go with either Admin's decision, or forum consensus.

Find all posts by this user
admin
Administrator

Posts: 393
Joined: Dec 2002
Post: #28
15-08-2009 02:43 PM

Your 4-choice alternative still swings it for me. If no major objections today I'll start the poll tomorrow.

Find all posts by this user
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #29
15-08-2009 03:50 PM

The word "Yes" should be avoided.
Statistically more people vote Yes whatever the question.
(People prefer to give positive answers.)

Or put 'yes' in all the options:
1. Yes, I'd prefer the cookout was held somewhere more suitable.
2. Yes, keep it here.
3. Yes, we have no bananas.

Find all posts by this user
Snazy


Posts: 1,504
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #30
15-08-2009 03:51 PM

I would go with the 4 answer, but remove 4. "Dont know" has always been a redundant option, and just takes the emphasis and vote share away from constructive votes. In reality if you dont have an opinion, say nothing.

The 5 answer option sort of trips over itself.

2) Yes, but with effective crowd, traffic and parking controls
and
4) No, not unless there are effective crowd, traffic and parking controls
are in effect the same answer. Yes if the crowd/parking problems are sorted.

Either way, good luck getting it sorted. Would be nice to keep events going in FH

Find all posts by this user
Contrary Mary


Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #31
15-08-2009 05:20 PM

Errm... I know I said I'd shut up Blush , but...

One final point in response to Perryman:

The way around this might be to put 'No, definitely not' at the top?

Ironically, this will have it ending up looking pretty much the same as nevermodern's original - but with a different question. Would people get confused by that, thinking it was still the same? Or would the emphasis on reading the question carefully help with that? (people do tend to scan stuff quickly...)

Find all posts by this user
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #32
16-08-2009 12:17 AM

Actually that is a different bias you raise, Contrary Mary - the order of the options. People tend to pick the choices nearest the start of a list when they read the list themselves on paper or a computer screen.

Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want, from yes minister is sort of related.
youtube link

The core problem with the poll is that no-one knows if there is a practical solution to the parking/traffic problem for a one off event.

A traffic solution has not been offered by anyone, so why have it as a separate option?

Find all posts by this user
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #33
16-08-2009 01:32 AM

can I mention getting into a pickle again?Blush

Find all posts by this user
admin
Administrator

Posts: 393
Joined: Dec 2002
Post: #34
16-08-2009 07:17 AM

A perfect poll is probably impossible so let's go with what we've got - new poll here.

Find all posts by this user
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields