TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:43:53 EDT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
[log in to unmask] quoted and then wrote:

>From:  [log in to unmask] (Geoff Bull)
>Sender:    [log in to unmask] (Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95))
>Reply-to:  [log in to unmask] (Geoff Bull)
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>"Ann S. Brandon" wrote:
>> Yes, that's why it's called a "poll:" the researcher polls a random
>> sample of, in this case, embedded systems programmers.
>But the response to an internet poll is nothing like a random sample.
>>   Embedded Systems Programming should've
>> safeguarded against multiple voting.
>They were pretty naive.

Although the term "multiple voting" has been used by many
people, I believe the _real_ action which raises resentment
is "Ada fans telling their friends".  The only way to avoid
that is a random sample, with adequate "margin of error"
calculations based on the percentage of "no response".

An internet poll with safeguards against multiple votes
may not have changed much.  Do we have any indication
that ESP did not protect against multiple votes ?