Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CfD: Interest Groups Surveys Message-ID: Date: 13 Feb 90 12:55:53 GMT References: <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <22212.25d6c149@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 59 In article <22212.25d6c149@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > In article , peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > In article <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > > Subject: 32 > Doesn't this vote mean that I am voting FOR 2 and 3? This voter > doesn't want to vote FOR anything, just AGAINST sci.*. The vote is in to parts: (1) For/against the group, and (2) If the group is created, what name should it have. this voter is abstaining from the vote on the group's existance, and voting for any name but sci. > >> Voter 4 really likes the idea of an astrology group, but hates the > >> sci.astrology name enough that he/she would prefer to not have a group > >> rather than name it sci.any. > > Subject: YES 32 > Again, there doesn't seem to be any way to vote against a name without > voting for something else. But he *did* want to vote for something else. > I think preference voting (if you prefer > that name) has a lot more going for it. Well, the problem with preference voting is that it doesn't provide any way of saying "I like this name more than that name", and all the attempts I've seen so far to allow this have complicated it way more than I'm willing to put up with. And I'm willing to put up with quite a bit of complication. > The problem I have with STV votes (actually non-binding referendums, NOT > surveys) is that they are designed to provide two different types of > information about newsgroup creation. First, they need to establish that > enough interest exists to warrant a newsgroup, and second they need to decide > what the name should be. Right. No single vote is going to do this, which is why I'm proposing that the vote have two independent parts. A YES/NO vote against the group itself, and a transferrable choice on the name. > In the examples above, in order to express an opinion AGAINST a > sci.* name, a voter must vote FOR something else, thus biasing the "interest" > survey. Not at all. The first voter didn't care about the group and abstained from the interest survey. The second voter did care about the group and voted for it, and *also* voted against "sci" in the name survey. > In the examples above, voter 1 would be counted as being interested > in rec.* and talk.*, which is not the case. I think Preference Voting (PV) > solves this problem, admittedly at the expense of finding the most prefered > name. Exactly. PV handles the first part, but fails on the second part: choosing the name. So do as I suggest, and have two separate parts. I don't recall who originally came up with the idea of splitting the vote like this, and I was unreceptive at the time, but kudos to the unknown poster. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'