Posts such as dishwasher v. washer/dryer and Manhattan v. Brooklyn got me thinking of a new feature for SE. It would be nice to be able to start a discussion with a simple survey. As people wrote in their comments, they could select their response to the question so the thread could show an at-a-glance tally. Of course, the feature could be more anonymous, (SE could probably restrict to one... [more]
Posts such as dishwasher v. washer/dryer and Manhattan v. Brooklyn got me thinking of a new feature for SE. It would be nice to be able to start a discussion with a simple survey. As people wrote in their comments, they could select their response to the question so the thread could show an at-a-glance tally.
Of course, the feature could be more anonymous, (SE could probably restrict to one response per screen name), but would then be more subject to rigging.
I think each survey should have a close date, so we can compare results to the same question, say six months later.
Please respond (and feel free to add your comments and suggestions):
I like the suggestion
I like, but think the implementation would make the survey results suspect
I think it's a bad idea
I don't care
Thank you for your consideration.
Katie
[less]
Response by glamma
about 16 years ago
Posts: 830
Member since: Jun 2009
I like it. Would have to prevent rigging though.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by bjw2103
about 16 years ago
Posts: 6236
Member since: Jul 2007
I think it's great.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lobster
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1147
Member since: May 2009
Katie, I like it except would it be difficult to implement in that if a person answers the question and then writes a second comment at a later point in the discussion, is there anyway they be prevented from again selecting their preference as to a dishwasher or washer/dryer for example? It would be interesting to see an at-a-glance tally.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Katie_eh
about 16 years ago
Posts: 34
Member since: Jan 2009
lobster, I think limiting one vote to a screen name would prevent double counting. Someone could still take the time to create multiple screen names, and thus multiple votes. Only allowing insiders to vote is another option (votes could still be rigged, but it would cost money, not just time.)
It also occurred to me that SE could generate revenue by posting sponsored questions for discussion and voting.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lobster
about 16 years ago
Posts: 1147
Member since: May 2009
Katie, not that you're asking, but I don't see any reason to limit the voting to solely insiders since you can post here and not be an insider.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
about 16 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
are we really worried about fraud. this is a board primarily for amusement. If anybody wants to spend the time rigging the data on dishwasher vs. w/d., let 'em.
Otherwise, we're taking this thing waaaaay to seriously.
I like it. Would have to prevent rigging though.
I think it's great.
Katie, I like it except would it be difficult to implement in that if a person answers the question and then writes a second comment at a later point in the discussion, is there anyway they be prevented from again selecting their preference as to a dishwasher or washer/dryer for example? It would be interesting to see an at-a-glance tally.
lobster, I think limiting one vote to a screen name would prevent double counting. Someone could still take the time to create multiple screen names, and thus multiple votes. Only allowing insiders to vote is another option (votes could still be rigged, but it would cost money, not just time.)
It also occurred to me that SE could generate revenue by posting sponsored questions for discussion and voting.
Katie, not that you're asking, but I don't see any reason to limit the voting to solely insiders since you can post here and not be an insider.
are we really worried about fraud. this is a board primarily for amusement. If anybody wants to spend the time rigging the data on dishwasher vs. w/d., let 'em.
Otherwise, we're taking this thing waaaaay to seriously.