An apology, an explanation, and a healthy dose of PERSPECTIVE.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Several DU'ers got on my case yesterday for the fact that I have been collecting data regarding who in DU supports which Democratic candidate, in my attempt to create a reality-based DU poll which will not be subject to the usual problems (not enough participation, people driving their supporters to the polls, etc.) I have been asked to refrain from making this list public, and will of course respect that. I would like to apologize to any who were offended.

Having said that, I feel the need to respond to those who seemed to feel that my collection of this information was/is somehow "creepy" and wrong.

FIRST: DU is not real life. Your personal information is secure and while you have a username, you are in fact anonymous to just about everyone. Unlike real life, the political affiliation of many DU'ers (within the context of this message board) is public knowledge whereas in real life you may be more circumspect and less likely to wear it on your sleeve.

SECOND: I am openly collecting this information, am ONLY collecting the one piece of information regarding which candidate each user is leaning toward or supporting, and am ONLY doing so for the express purpose of being able to see and describe what the actual percentage breakdown is on DU. Yes, I'm OCD.

THIRD: If you are concerned about the above, it's time for a dose of perspective. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT is almost certainly at this moment in time combing through each and every post on DU, with taxpayer dollars, and keeping a record of it all. They're almost certainly collecting a lot more information than just which candidate you support. And at some time in the future, the government may attempt to gain the actual identity of certain members. If this occurs, it will require DU to spend time, effort and the contributors' money to vigorously defend your privacy and mine from the government.

So if you're concerned about your privacy, I'd suggest that you redirect your energies toward the people who actually want to violate it: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

That's all I really have to say, and I'm not going to hold court in this thread so if it turns into another free-for-all and gets locked and/or deleted, so be it. Once again I apologize to those who were offended and I will not post or disseminate the information I'm collecting; therefore, when I publish the results it will not be possible for anyone to double-check my data and I'm sure many will question the validity of my numbers. But anyone who knows me could tell you that my margin of error will be pretty small.

:hippie:

Thanks,

FS

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Dude, you need a hobby and PDQ.

:eyes:

[DS1]

2. I'd considered doing something like that

People complaining about it can jam it. If they don't want that information in the public domain, they shouldn't post it.

Believe me there are people without our best interests at heart, on right-wing discussion sites, certainly keeping much more information about DUers.

[Midlodemocrat]

5. It's not as much about what people post as it is about the stalkeresque

threads that appeared yesterday. They were downright creepy.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. And any list that has Sniffa as a Clinton supporter makes me...

:rofl:

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. True, I was not sure about Sniffa....

Which was one of the reasons I had made the list public, I wanted to be able to give people the opportunity to correct any mistakes I may have made. But oh well, in general most people have made flat declarations as to who it is that they support or are leaning toward, or they include the information in their avatar or signature. So in most cases it will be accurate.

[sniffa]

34. i think that was his reason all along

he just wanted to call me a Clinton supporter.

[bicentennial_baby]

35. Hey, you're being blamed for Romney over in the Lounge, hitler...

By Jar Jar's momma ;)

[Midlodemocrat]

36. Hello? Williams Sonoma? Yes, please cancel my order for Bi_Baby.

TYVM.

[bicentennial_baby]

38. Nooooooooo!

I wuvs you!!! :cry:

[Midlodemocrat]

39. I KNEW IT!!!!

:bounce:


:loveya:

[CreekDog]

178. that's so wrong of him

when you're actually a Jar Jar supporter.

;)

[Gormy Cuss]

149. I know for a fact that sniffa's a big fan of Mittens.

I heard that as a little boy he used to hang outside of Bain & Co. just for the privilege of handing Mitt his morning bottle of Evian. It was like those old Mean Joe Green commercials without the caffeine.

:hide:

[bicentennial_baby]

156. ...

:rofl:

:yourock:

[DS1]

10. link?

[Midlodemocrat]

11. They've been pulled.

I think someone got a screen cap, though. Let me check.

[DS1]

14. Nah, again I say 'total overreaction' by people who just need to understand

that people watch what they said.

Calling it reprehensible is laughable.

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Did you get my PM?

Cause I think it crosses the line in a big way. JMHO.

[DS1]

17. Yes, and I'm replying to it over here

Why are people so panicked about someone say "Hey, you said xxxx"


I think the long list just frightened them. They probably don't work with databases.

[Midlodemocrat]

20. I thought it looked like stalking. YMMV.

I work with databases every day, too.

[Lex]

58. Apparently it was not just locked but deleted

but maybe the Mods and Admins are just being "panicked" too?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

69. You can't post PMs -- breaking DU rules

[FlyingSquirrel]

72. Sorry, didn't know.. won't happen again.

[Lex]

73. Instead of "collecting data" you might better use your time

reading the rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[FlyingSquirrel]

77. Please state exactly which rule you believe I broke and how...

Besides my posting a PM below which I have already apologized for and stated will not happen again.

[uppityperson]

81. Zounds! Is it You????????

Soundz familiar

[Midlodemocrat]

87. I believe your (Z) candor about this is absolutely correct.

[uppityperson]

89. Amazing

:toast:

[Lex]

88. It's a good idea to know them beforehand.

You don't have to run afoul of them before familiarizing yourself with them.

[LostinVA]

67. It's "people like them" that'll get this thread locked, too

Or so I was told downthread.

[Donnachaidh]

3. oh wow -- since the government does it, it's okay for YOU to do it?

That's the same sort of mind-numbing excuse we've gotten from Bush and Company for 6 years.

Here's a dose of perspective -- it's STILL creepy. Even more so now with the *explanation*.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. Compiling data from the Internet is not a violation of privacy

In fact and in law, information available on the Internet which is not secured by reasonable means is classed as publicly available, just like information published in a phone book and public records of a municipality, county or state. As such, it is perfectly legitimate to use for research and, by law and precedent, as been for may decades at least.

[FlyingSquirrel]

124. Hey TechBear...

Everett here, born in Seattle but moved a few years back.

[rucky]

4. It's nothing anybody hasn't openly volunteered.

I don't see the big deal.

[foo_bar]

55. did sniffa openly volunteer for Clinton?

Anyone defending the OP is lacking or ignoring a critical piece of information, namely that the two former threads consisted of erroneous predictions regarding individual DUers' candidate preferences, and that no one on the list actually consented to this mind-reading exercise prior to having their online identity/ies "outed" as far as their perceived affiliation. The OP didn't return to his/her threads to address reasonable criticism (and isn't offering to "hold court" with the hoi polloi on this one), while he/she continues to misrepresent the nature of the vaporized posts:

SECOND: I am openly collecting this information, am ONLY collecting the one piece of information regarding which candidate each user is leaning toward or supporting, <...>

(original post)

The request was for two pieces of information:

All other members please just REPLY to THIS THREAD with your first & second choice. If you change your mind just add another reply with the updated information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2532083 (for now?)

...

and am ONLY doing so for the express purpose of being able to see and describe what the actual percentage breakdown is on DU.

(original post)

Doesn't the OP mean breakdowns? The list consisted of DU users' suspected "second choice" on top of their (wrongly) suspected candidate, so the "explanation" actually makes no sense, along with the non-apology "apology" to "those who were offended". While I'm indirectly responding to the OP,

Your personal information is secure and while you have a username, you are in fact anonymous to just about everyone.

(ibid)

If that isn't a pack of foma, what is? Forget people on the list whose username is their given name (did W.Pitt formally endorse Kucinich 2008?), the chief significance of pseudo-anonymity is making the poll worthless from a practical point of view (since one person with spare time and money can register multiple usernames on any system with open registration), if a "poll" could be more worthless after inventing a data set out of thin air based on first impressions which didn't square with the same users' self-estimation. "Your personal information is secure" is categorically false without a qualifier. Hope this explains some of the "big deal", response #47 provides a nice summary of the remaining WTF? questions surrounding this failed Ouija board experiment.

[FlyingSquirrel]

59. Since this topic is still open... guess I'll drop in and respond

Yes, I was hoping for first and second choices but I'm becoming resigned to the fact that I won't be able to include second choices since not enough people include them to make a valid poll out of it.

Re Sniffa: If that's the only mistake anyone can point to... ? I had a question mark by him in my own (not publicly visible) list and was planning to revisit that assumption. In fact have a question mark by quite a few, and as I stated before this was the main reason for posting the list (to get some of my question marks answered.) Anyone I am not certain of will not be included in the final numbers. Duh. It's not mind reading, it's deduction.

[uppityperson]

62. Will you respond to any of these questions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2545358&mesg_id=2546121

[FlyingSquirrel]

75. When I get a chance..

I copied them down in case thread gets locked or deleted. Just 'cause I love you so much. If this thread gets locked or deleted though, I'll only respond as a PM to you 'cause this discussion is getting old (to me).

FS

[uppityperson]

79. No, publicly respond. There are a bunch of us who want to know.

I bet it is getting old. Being asked to answer and dodging does get old. As it is a public issue, and as you publicly apologized (though "sorry if you were offended" isn't really an apology), you can publicly answer. It is not between you and I but you and a bunch of DUers.

[FlyingSquirrel]

84. Like I said, publicly if thread is still here. Otherwise I'm done with y'all.

[uppityperson]

85. we could hope so.

zippidy do dah

Next time, ask permission to post, don't post and ask posters to opt out. It is that simple.

[foo_bar]

64. "It's not mind reading, it's deduction."

Re Sniffa: If that's the only mistake anyone can point to... ?

At least one other person on the last vapor thread accused you of misstating their beliefs, but I'm still curious to hear more about your "deduction" process.

I had a question mark by him in my own (not publicly visible) list and was planning to revisit that assumption.

Lolz.

Anyone I am not certain of will not be included in the final numbers. Duh.

That would be 100% of your "sample".

[uppityperson]

60. The OP didn't return to his/her threads to address reasonable criticism (and isn't offering to "hold

"The OP didn't return to his/her threads to address reasonable criticism (and isn't offering to "hold court" with the hoi polloi on this one), while he/she continues to misrepresent the nature of the vaporized posts." Indeed. Thank you. (am I hoi polloi?)

[Midlodemocrat]

78. Not bloody likely.

[MH1]

7. No apology needed, as far as I can tell

If someone doesn't want what they post collected and analyzed, they need to hie themselves over to a private forum. One that has really good security.

[RiverStone]

8. Almost all of us will be supporting the Dem nominee anyway...

So ultimately, all the collection data will be academic.

Though do you see it helping us to kick rethug ass? If so, how?

[melody]

9. FS, I think what you were doing was obvious and laudable. That's why I participated

I just assume we're all tracked anyway. I had my license plate number taken down back in the 80s just for attending
a Terence McKenna lecture. We don't have to be afraid of the people obviously collecting data ... the troublemakers
do it without our even knowing. And I know you were just doing that out of curiousity -- I'm interested in stuff like
that, too.

I can sympathize however with those who were worried and felt "tagged". You might want to take the data of those who
wish to participate and use it with the number of DU'ers to come up with a tendency to vote. That might give you the
information you were seeking.

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. That's not a bad idea, although...

if I only include those who don't hate the very idea of my poll, I may end up seriously underestimating the "mean-spirited" vote!


:rofl:

[uppityperson]

48. Do a poll. It is that simple. Do a poll.

It will be anonymous and non=offensive. Just do a poll. People can chose to participate, same as they could "chose" to participate in your public list. Unless you really care more about which candidate each individual poster supports, rather than whom DUers support.

[FlyingSquirrel]

158. Poll you suggested was created...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3906119&mesg_id=3906119

[Didereaux]

13. Anyone who sees a thing wrong with what YOU are doing, is over do for an aluminum refit.

[MilesColtrane]

19. Nice post Big Brother.

:evilgrin:

[sentelle]

21. There is something wrong....

and it is only partly to do with the privacy issue.

Mostly the issue that prevents any such survey from being accurate is that the survey is being self-selected. I.e. everyone that participates in the survey is a willing participant....

So you will have a survey accurate only to those who participated, and not to those who did not. What did the person who chose not to participate feel. While you might think that this detail is irrelevant, consider how many are not participating.

I think Ariana Huffington did a piece a few years ago talking about the meaninglessness of polls. She posited that if only 1 out of 4 people who were asked to participate actually participated, the results are skewed in the direction of those who feel strongly, and away from those who, for whatever reason are mistrustful, or in principle refuse to participate.

[FlyingSquirrel]

26. Exact opposite of what I'm doing

I was asking people to give their input, but also inputting people who did not choose to give me their input, based on avatars, signatures, or statements made. That's why people got upset I guess.

[LostinVA]

31. No, we're also upset because of the way it was posted, and when

Paid Pundits and psychos.

[uppityperson]

76. Wrong. You didn't ask for input but posted what you thought

and then said "if you don't want to be on this list let me know and I'll delete you". It would be better to ASK for input than for removal. Here is an easy thing to try, next time.

I am compiling a list of which candidate each individual supports. If you would like to be on this list, please let me know and let me know whom you support.

See? That is asking for input. Opt in with accurate info vs opt out of inaccurate info. That is what got people upset. Ask. Not take.

[LostinVA]

22. Sorry, it's creepy

[Lex]

57. Yes, that is the exact word that springs to mind: CREEPY.

nt

[LostinVA]

23. Guess what? IT'S NOT DELETED

I didn't see it, but yet I've had it shown to me just now. It's creepy and stalkerish and has NOTHING to do with "info we've posted publ;icly."

Know what it is? It's a nice hit list.

And, you're wrong about whom quite a few people endorse.

You should be disciplined for this. Seriously.

[FlyingSquirrel]

27. A hit list? You gotta be kidding.

Have you seen me doing anything of that sort? What exactly would a "hit" consist of anyway? And I recognize that I may have gotten some of the preferences wrong, which was the point of publishing it (so I could get input on mistakes I had made). However the vast majority are correct as they either made repeated statements regarding their support or had it in their avatar/signature or both.

Got a feeling this thread will soon be locked, thanks to people like you... but whatever, I believe I have made my case.

FS

[LostinVA]

29. Did I say that was YOUR intention?

No. But, if you don't think it'll be used for this...

Oh yes, blame "people like me" for YOUR mistake.

Whatever. Go volunteer or something.

Oh, and what case are you trying to make? That your creepy thread wasn't creepy because YOU say so, and those of us not liking it are "people like you"?

[uppityperson]

49. You still haven't answered our questions, and this is not an apology.

"I'm sorry if you were offended but I did it for the good of all and anyone who disagrees is paranoid or a fool" is not an apology

[uppityperson]

52. found it, thanks for the notice.

(apology my ass)

[The Straight Story]

24. JeffR collects data for DUzy's :) and people here 'keep tabs' on others at times

I have seen people bring up things relating to something someone posted a long time ago, even if they weren't on that thread when the poster originally made it.

Not for me really, but hey - to each their own.

[Kingshakabobo]

37. ZOMG!!!! JeffR collects "hit lists" !!!

[The Straight Story]

46. Indeed! I get scared every Friday!

:rofl:

[MilesColtrane]

51. When the glorious Democratic Underground Cultural Revolution begins,

we'll have JeffR to thank.

He separates those who act with ideological purity from those who will go up against the wall so we don't have to.

[bobbolink]

25. "Your personal information is secure" NOT! I was harrassed, at my home address, by someone from

DU.

Yes, it happens, it's scary, and some of us know just how insecure we are on the internet tubes.

[FlyingSquirrel]

28. Dude that SUCKS. n/t

[LSK]

40. how on earth did they get it?

[melody]

42. I've been harassed a couple of times over my 17 years on the net

But the information was always gleaned by local resources -- looking up my name and city in a dead tree
phone book.

[sniffa]

101. at the library?

[riverdeep]

150. Yes, people think the only ones who read this stuff are people who agree with them, overall.

Or people who wouldn't do them harm, at least. Just like driving defensively you assume the worst from the other drivers, but sometimes get hit anyway, you have to assume the worst about the internets. Obviously, if you post under your own name, it's taking things a step further. It's a decision you make, but one that can have impact beyond a message board. Some do it refusing to be intimidated, and I admire that. Personally, I think I've got enough to deal with than having some creepy freeper take pictures of me coming out of work.

[AlCzervik]

30. was this info given to you voluntarily and was any of it personal?

real names, addresses etc?

[LostinVA]

32. Check your PM

[pitohui]

33. if you think the gov't has nothing better to do than read posts on DU

then bless your heart

[sentelle]

43. so I guess you are saying

That carnivore doesn't exist?

IIRC per the 'patriot act' the POTUS or the AG have unilateral decision making authority as to who is a terrorist. They don't have to tell anyone, and they don't have to ask. If you are declared one, they can pretty much do what they want, including tap (electronically, they don't have to enter your house, your line is bugged) your phone, email and even key log you.

Who says he hasn't issued a decree that the Democratic Party is a 'terrorist organisation', and as such has universal rights to eavesdrop on them, legally? He can do it. Our lawmakers wrote it into law. He doesn't even have to write a decree....

I assume that I am being eavesdropped. My wife comes from a Muslim country, so therefore, I (and my wife) call out there on an infrequent basis.... count on a file being kept of me......

Have you engaged in a peace movement? done work for a Democratic party member? Openly supported a party member? chances are, they are tracking you.

[silverweb]

41. Well said.

And it's not like participation in your list was mandatory or anything. Sheesh!

I thought it was a good idea, keeping a permanent list going that could be added to, updated, etc. It sure beat all the hit-or-miss random polls going on several times a week for inclusiveness and accuracy.

Thanks for your efforts, FS. I'm sorry it didn't work out the way you'd hoped.

[FlyingSquirrel]

159. Thanks for your support... made new poll for voluntary participation here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3906119&mesg_id=3906119

[NashVegas]

44. I Don't Have Any Problems With This

DU hosts a veritable goldmine of data re: voter habits, online message board socio-political trends, and other anthropoligical information.

Anyone who imagines there's no one now, and never has been, who goes through these boards looking for trends is naive.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

45. I missed your post, who am I supporting again?

I keep forgetting. :silly:

Seriously, what exactly did you do that pissed off DU posters? You posted their previous comments about candidates or you posted a poll? It's not really clear to me by reading your post.

[uppityperson]

53. Posted a list of whom they could figure out each poster supported.

It was an ongoing permanent changeable list of which individual poster they figured supported whom. For some reason an anonymous poll (who do you support) wasn't good enough, but they wanted a public declaration and posted it in a list. It was not a poll but a list they made up. They never said why they needed a public list except they were afraid an anonymous poll would be anonymous. It was creepy and no, I'm not the only one who thought so. It was an interesting group who were creeped out, bunch of posters from all over the spectrum. Still wish they would answer the questions.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

56. While you posted this

I was posting a reply to your post below. Thanks again!

I kind of gleaned from the other post that it was something like that but after reading the OP again I wasn't sure. Since the post was deleted I knew it had to be over-the-top somehow though.

[FlyingSquirrel]

66. I just posted a list of DU'ers together with presumed candidate they...

were supporting, and asked them to correct me if I had it wrong.

Did not include any posts from anyone or anything like that. Should've figured some people would freak tho...

[uppityperson]

68. You still don't address reasonable criticism beyond insulting. Sad

"The OP didn't return to his/her threads to address reasonable criticism (and isn't offering to "hold court" with the hoi polloi on this one), while he/she continues to misrepresent the nature of the vaporized posts."

[salin]

94. That it was not "voluntary" - but info 'gleaned' from postings and

avatars. As in screening threads, documenting who says what to determine who supports which candidate, and then putting those folks on this list - made public.

Per "hit list" refered to above - think of it not as outside of DU - but a quick way for opponents (per which candidate is supported) to quickly identify and even more aggressively challenge/swarm posters on the list who are listed (correctly or not) for supporting a different candidate.

Sure folks on other websites obsess and collect information about us based on what we write on DU, but the idea that one of our own is combing through threads to create a database, that could be used to harass other Duers, is a wee bit creepy. I doubt the intent was malicious but it could be used to harass other Duers. And given that folks didn't chose to be included - but only given (in the middle of the night) the option to "opt out" IF they happen to see the thread - it seems a bit underhanded and, well, creepy.

[uppityperson]

47. I wish you would answer the questions we had last night. Let's try again

Simply repeating is not enough. This strikes me as gathering info on whom each of us supports, rather than who DU supports. If you want to see whom DU supports, to see and describe the actual percentage breakdown on DU, you don't need public declarations.

Here are the questions which did not get answered last night, even though posts were made supporting the public list.

1. What is a permanent changeable update-able list?
2. Did you get permission from everyone to post their names on this list? I guess not since it got deleted.
3. How does asking each individual DUer to publicly state whom they support give you MORE of an idea of whom DU supports than a poll does? Rationale given last night was that some posters encourage others to vote in polls, and polls are not available at all times, or everyone doesn't vote in them. Also, it was stated that it is harder to vote multiple times if each poster declares publicly under their username than anonymously in a poll. Did you know that each poster can vote only 1 time in a poll?
4. Someone said last night that they know posters with 10-12 usernames and it is more difficult for these individuals to cheat by publicly acknowledging whom they support rather than doing it anonymously. IF you do know of someone with 10-12 usernames, it would be good to let the mods/admin know. IF there are posters with this many names, how is it more difficult to vote publicly than anonymously under each name?
5. For some of us, no. Did you know that information here is not secure and anonymous? It is not that difficult to figure out whom we are and I really don't appreciate being listed like you did.
6. You say you will still publish a list you make of whom you deem to support whom. Why? Seriously, why? If it is for you, keep it for you. Why publish it?


IF you truly wish to do this on your own, do whatever you want. I am sure there are people gathering info on posters here. But don't post it publicly. Groups or individuals wishing such lists should not be given assistance.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

54. You've answered most of my question above

Thanks, even though I know that wasn't your intention.

I will address the part about knowing "posters with 10-12 usernames."

I know one poster here who opened a new account to change their name and they were banned for doing so.

I don't know if it was their posting style or the fact that the IP address was logging in under different accounts, or a combination of factors which alerted the Admins.

It would seem to me that 10-12 accounts being run off the same IP address would indeed be a red flag though.

[Lex]

63. Multiple accounts are not allowed

per the DU rules. IIRC, they will be deleted.

[uppityperson]

65. Indeed. The poster claiming that also said (along the lines of) If I alerted on each

multiple username, that's all I be doing on DU. Made me snort.

[FlyingSquirrel]

70. I didn't get to read questions from last night.

Got up, checked the thread and saw that all heck had broken loose, but had to go to work. Came back and thread was gone. So it's kinda hard to respond to all your questions. (And it interrupts other stuff I'm doing.) Gotta go back to work again in a few. So sorry to disappoint.

FS

[uppityperson]

74. Oh baloney. The questions are clearly stated in the post you are replying to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2545358&mesg_id=2546121

IF you really wanted to compile a list of whom each individual DUer supported, you would have asked something like "I am compiling a list of whom each individual DUer supports. If you would like to be on this list, please let me know and whom you support." rather than publishing a list you compiled from guesswork with the caveat "if you don't want to be on this list, let me know".

[FlyingSquirrel]

80. I have already agreed not to post a list again. n/t

[uppityperson]

83. Still no explanation. Zounds!

[timtom]

50. Lest there be any mistake,

Nathan Hale is solidly 100% behind Kucinich.

[FlyingSquirrel]

71. Ah, thanks NH... good ol' data. Love it :-)

[FlyingSquirrel]

160. New all-voluntary-participation poll here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3906119&mesg_id=3906119

[Midlodemocrat]

82. Did you join DU 7 weeks ago for the express purpose of seeing which

candidate we all support? Because that is sure how it looks to me. And, it smells.

[Lex]

90. Does it smell like a zombie?

nt

[Midlodemocrat]

91. Yep. ExZACTLY.

[uppityperson]

92. now now now, don't want to get the topic locked.

time for a break, off for a snooze. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[LostinVA]

96. Me too

[Evoman]

86. For your list:

I support Christian Slater for president, with Tara Reids as his running mate.

[CJCRANE]

95. They both starred in the

worst movie of 2005 - Alone in the Dark.

I haven't seen it yet as most reviews advise you not to pay watch it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

163. Speaking of which...

What ever happened to Christopher Walken's campaign?

http://www.walken2008.com/

[proud2BlibKansan]

93. Ah just admit the chemtrails made you do it

:evilgrin:

[Richard Steele]

97. Your "a healthy dose of PERSPECTIVE" line comes across as arrogant, condescending...

...and more than a little DEFENSIVE. And then you end on the same note
with that last paragraph.

Seriously undercuts the "apology and explanation" part, knowhutImean?

[salin]

98. rather reeks of a bit of toned-down self-righteous indignation

at any and all who would call the spammed threads "creepy." - Yet nowhere do I read any sense of trying to understand *why* some folks found it creepy and thus to address those concerns. That approach would suggest appology "to those offended".

[Richard Steele]

99. Indeed- you expressed it better than I.

I'll just leave it at that, before I'm tempted to start
using phrases like "mildly sociopathic".

[bobbolink]

103. "apology 'to those offended'"

That's sooooo last century.

:(

Sensitivity?

Compassion?

Oh, Gak.

:sarcasm:

[BeHereNow]

100. Again, I call B U L L S H I T

FS: You have YET to acknowledge concerns and questions
regarding your motive in compiling, without consent in many cases,
and making public your list.

Quite simply the reason your list is NOT welcome on DU is
due to the fact that any nut case reading DU can now easily identify,
stalk and target individual members for their candidate support.

It has happened on DU before and thanks to you,
it will no doubt happen again.

What part of that problem do you not understand?

Know what you can do with your "list?"
Same goes for your faux apology.
BHN

[Elidor]

102. Put me down for Kucinich and Dodd

I'm fairly certain I'm voting for Kucinich - I owe him a vote from four years ago, when I voted for Dean in a vain attempt to stop Kerry - but I'm not ruling out Dodd.

[FlyingSquirrel]

161. New all-voluntary-participation poll here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3906119&mesg_id=3906119

[CJCRANE]

104. Uwe Boll '08

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

105. I keep lists,...and check them twice. *LOL* It's a pragmatic thingy for me.

I have no problem with what you're doing, whatsoever.

:rofl:

Please, continue.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

106. I gratefully accept your creepy perspective.

[uppityperson]

107. My issue is that it was not voluntary. IF someone wants to ask who supports whom,

leaving up to others to reply, that is ok. But posting a list of ass-umptions with an "you agree unless you opt out" clause, then this non-apology, bah. Zap and zounds!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

108. The original creepy post is one thing, the creepy apology is another, and

the creepy perspective is a whole other another. :hi:

[salin]

117. creeping... hmmm... makes me wonder...

could Oscar somehow be involved? :D

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

118. Don't ever try to get in the voting booth with that animal.

[salin]

121. Frightening thought...

though one could walk out of the booth as a masterpiece of art (ala Oscar's penchant for throwing paint in a less disciplined way than Pollack.)

[salin]

116. then add that the thread announcing this opt in/out appears in the wee hours

... sorta limits the 'voluntary opt out' of folks don't even see it.

[pleah]

109. No problem.

[aikoaiko]

110. I don't understand why people were getting on your case.

You tried to deduce and compile a list linking DU usernames and Democratic candidates based on publicly available info on DU?

That's it?

[uppityperson]

112. And posted it without permission. IF had asked for input, then ok.

Opting in to a list is fine. If someone wants to start one and ask people to opt in, fine. But posting ass-umptions and saying "opt out", not so fine. Then posting it with the excuse that it more accurately showed who DUers were supporting than an anonymous poll, also not so fine.

[aikoaiko]

113. It never would have occurred to me that somone would need my permission to say it looks like I ....

...support candidate X (in my case Richardson, but leaning towards Edwards) based on what I've posted earlier in DU.

Whether it is more accurate than a poll is a debatable opinion and hardly the silliest one I've seen on DU.

The only thing I see potentially wrong is that is close to "calling out" specific DUers which is against the rules.

[uppityperson]

115. That point was raised by others, was their concern. Whole thing was/is odd.

[rug]

111. Narc.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

114. "Dave's not here, man."

[avenger64]

119. That's not good enough - 200 lashes!

n/t

[uppityperson]

120. I've a big question about this link. Thoughts as to how it pertains?

http://www.thegrowreport.com/Forums/archive/index.php/t-470.html

Go to 10-13-2007, 06:36 PM
Zandor
10-13-2007, 06:36 PM
Not fair guy's, I can't decide either. Some great names so far but I am leaning toward a few I like.

How about just calling him Walter?

Nobody said Rockey yet? (As in Rocket J Squirrel from Rockey & Bullwinkle; Oops am I showing my again again?)

Peace

Z

[FlyingSquirrel]

126. Actually it was SecretSquirrel at first but someone took it elsewhere. n/t

[uppityperson]

130. And a quick search shows me s.s., member 12/28/05 Zero posts.

hmmm. Will keep watching. time for some zzzzzzs

[FlyingSquirrel]

132. Dude

I'm talking about a very long time ago like 10 years ago.

[foo_bar]

152. not sure about the Bullwinkle connection

I can't see DU-Zandor hanging out on a pot cultivation board and ending all his posts with "Peace,":

Peace
Zandor

Check out The Grow Report my new podcast show and you too can learn the nuances of this great plant and grow BIG lush flowers!

http://boards.cannabis.com/members/zandor.html

vs.

Sheehan is dead to this party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2050451#2051034

Perhaps it's a specter of flamewars past, but I don't think this is the Zandor you're looking for.

[MonkeyFunk]

122. You have yet

to explain WHY this information is helpful.

It's just creepy.

[FlyingSquirrel]

123. Sorry dude I work long hours. Ok the list was as follows:

1. What is a permanent changeable update-able list?
2. Did you get permission from everyone to post their names on this list? I guess not since it got deleted.
3. How does asking each individual DUer to publicly state whom they support give you MORE of an idea of whom DU supports than a poll does? Rationale given last night was that some posters encourage others to vote in polls, and polls are not available at all times, or everyone doesn't vote in them. Also, it was stated that it is harder to vote multiple times if each poster declares publicly under their username than anonymously in a poll. Did you know that each poster can vote only 1 time in a poll?
4. Someone said last night that they know posters with 10-12 usernames and it is more difficult for these individuals to cheat by publicly acknowledging whom they support rather than doing it anonymously. IF you do know of someone with 10-12 usernames, it would be good to let the mods/admin know. IF there are posters with this many names, how is it more difficult to vote publicly than anonymously under each name?
5. For some of us, no. Did you know that information here is not secure and anonymous? It is not that difficult to figure out whom we are and I really don't appreciate being listed like you did.
6. You say you will still publish a list you make of whom you deem to support whom. Why? Seriously, why? If it is for you, keep it for you. Why publish it?

-----

First let me say that I actually respect you dudes/dudettes and your right to ask me questions and have me answer them. I'm not gonna just dismiss you even though other people are telling me I should (thanks for your support though, other people!)

Second, regarding an unasked question, the timing of the original post was just the timing of me being done for the night and going to bed. If I had known I was going to cause such a stir, I would have waited till I was gonna be around. No, actually I'd known it was gonna rile everyone up I wouldn't have posted it in the first place. Believe it or not I really don't like stirring up hornet nests, but sometimes I just seem to manage to do so anyway. I try and make peace afterwards 'cause I'm a real peacenik.

:hippie:

They really should have a peace sign somewhere in the smilie table.

One more thing before I answer questions 1-6: I get it now. At first I thought it was just a big ol' blowup about privacy concerns which made no sense to me. I should have realized though from the way the first big deal with me on DU happened, that there are a lot of very suspicious, paranoid people here and probably with good reason. I haven't been around long enough to have seen the crap you've put up with, although I remember quite a bit from 2004 on Kerry's website. (I swore off the whole thing after that but of course the election year has sucked me back in. Kerry should have had the same rule as DU that Repugs just aren't allowed on the board.) So now I get why you don't want a list posted, and I get why people don't want to be pegged as supporting someone whether true or not (especially if not, as people's choices can be fluid). I also get why you wouldn't want me to make an assumption and then say that you have to opt out or tell me otherwise or it stands. The fact of the matter is, I jumped in with both feet without really thinking stuff through. And I really am sorry to have ticked people off, whether you believe it or not.

Ok....

1. Would be a list like you saw with name, first choice, second choice, and date. Then whenever someone changed their mind they would post or message, whatever, with their new candidate.

2. No I did not get permission and should have.

3. It is my opinion that some DU'ers are more active in polls than others, but this could be wrong. Only way to test it would be to try and get a very large sample. Also, since the majority of the list would be the same people each time, with some additions as they came in, it would show whether a shift was taking place among the same basic pool of people as opposed to whether a large group of new people were suddenly coming in and supporting a different candidate. As far as the "multiple times" thing, I don't believe that came from me. My big thing was that some polls got more play than others and had different choices, some got kicked and some did not (usually kicked in my opinion by the people whose candidate was winning), and some were driving their supporters to certain polls in numbers, while others were not doing the same thing.

4. Don't know anything about multiple names. However, I have seen situations where on certain websites a person will say, Hey there's a poll going on >>here<<. Go vote for X candidate for X reason. Seems to me a person can create a DU account within a day, or have one ready to go for that purpose. I don't think someone would have that many accounts (if they did, they seriously need to get a life worse than I do), but the point is, if the sample of DU'ers is large enough, it would make those few people who are trying to make things look different than reality have a much smaller impact in the poll results. Sample size was really the key, not anonymous vs. open; the purpose of having it in the open was to allow others to check the results themselves to see if I actually was counting votes correctly etc. and also to try and include people who routinely don't bother with polls, in order to avoid the possibility that a certain candidate's supporters were much less likely to participate in polls than another candidate's supporters.

5. I did not realize that some here were personally identifiable and I apologize.

6. I do not intend to publish the list and will not publish it or disseminate it to anyone. I will keep it to myself. SINCE I'm keeping it to myself, I'm not gonna let anyone opt out cause that would skew the results. You wanna argue my numbers 'cause you can't see the data, that's your prerogative. If someone wants to make sure that I counted their vote correctly they can PM me. If a person has not made their choice perfectly clear or something looks questionable I'll exclude it from the poll result. The only thing I'll be publishing is the number of people in the poll and the percentage support for each candidate. If someone still has a problem with the whole thing, I will cheerfully commit Seppuku. I'll make a video of it and have my second post it.

Squirrel guts all over the place... who's gonna clean that up?

:eyes:

[Blue-Jay]

125. Re: #6...

You're not going to "publish" the list, but you're still compiling data, even though it's been shown to be inaccurate? To what end?

[FlyingSquirrel]

127. It's been shown that ONE or TWO of the PRELIMINARY DATA..

were inaccurate. Since I never intended to include any data that was questionable in the final results, and was seeking to have the questionable data verified, that problem will take care of itself. And "to what end" is to publish, not the list, but the numbers. The percentage support for each candidate. That will be published, and the identifying data will not. Kinda like, you know, when Zogby calls people up on the phone, takes down their personal information, then publishes their numbers but not the personal information. Get it?

:smoke:

[Blue-Jay]

128. So you're DU's little Zogby?

That's great.

[FlyingSquirrel]

129. Um, sort of.... except

I still won't forget when John Zogby went on the Daily Show a couple days before the election and flatly announced that Kerry was gonna win. That was a BIG mistake. It might even have driven some repugs to the polls that otherwise wouldn't have gone.

[foo_bar]

141. at least two were demonstrably false, and none were actually shown to be true

Since I never intended to include any data that was questionable in the final results, and was seeking to have the questionable data verified, that problem will take care of itself

How will the problem take care of itself without a mechanism for verifying the (simulated) data? Much of the feedback you got from the banished threads consisted of "remove me now" and "X is a Y supporter?", but now you don't even have the reality check.

Kinda like, you know, when Zogby calls people up on the phone, takes down their personal information, then publishes their numbers but not the personal information.

Right, if Zogby did a Lexis-Nexis search on "Edwards" and extrapolated it to the general population with random number assignment to names in the phone book, then leaked the names of the people he arbitrarily attached to Edwards, except it would be a much fairer and less intrusive system than making "deductions" regarding online personae's choice of candidate today by reading (every?) post they wrote over a period of time (of, what, months?) and deciding for users which way they're leaning today (not to mention their 2nd choice, all in time for that big deadline). Zogby has his critics but no one can accuse him of totally making shit up and then retracting a subset of his Karnak revelations after they were falsified in a ~4-hour public comment period but insisting the rest of the unverifiable hunches were valid because they weren't explicitly shown to be false ("anyone who knows me could tell you that my margin of error will be pretty small.")

Get it?

I'm not sold on the "OCD" explanation either, was it self-diagnosed? My (confessedly biased) impression of the disorder is that its sufferers tend to be thorough, even perfectionist. What I do get is an open caucus in a few days, and the need that day to recruit boots from the candidates who don't make quorum in a given Iowan district, so it would be a logical time for a campaign to seek out the second choice of other candidates' supporters (by Jan 3rd natch). I'd mainly be worried for any campaign that subcontracted a "poll" to someone who thinks margin of error is a function of personal credibility and DU a representative microcosm of the internet universe (much less the caucus voting universe).

[FlyingSquirrel]

144. I'd be a little more worried (on your part)...

If I, FS, were on this board 16 hours a day instead of a measly few when I can fit it in around my 12-14 hour work day. Then it might be more likely that I was some kind of plant. But hey, I understand the worry and concern. On the other hand if that's what I was doing, wouldn't I just keep posting polls and driving people to them constantly?

[foo_bar]

147. it is rather incredible that you found the time to investigate >400 DUers after a 12-14 hour workday

Not to mention maintaining two different lists, one with question marks and one for public consumption (hard to believe but there it is). Feel free to answer any obvious questions like "how will the problem take care of itself without a mechanism for verifying the (simulated) data?" when you're up to it or find the time. And in fairness, it's hard to believe any campaign would be reckless enough to throw money at an opaque "deduction process" that contradicts the data points' own stated beliefs, so there's an equally strong case for a "lone nut" hypothesis.

[uppityperson]

151. Now, now, now. You are taking away valuable compilation/inveztigation time

by azking for answerz.

[FlyingSquirrel]

154. I'd go with the "lone nut" hypothesis. n/t

[LostinVA]

148. Apparently you joined a month ago just to do this -- why?

And, YOU'RE STILL COMPILING DATA EVEN THOUGH IT'S CREEPY.

Ugh.

Deja vu, folks.

[uppityperson]

131. Thank you for the answers. Regarding 3&4 and &6

3. You miss the fact that each username can vote only once in a poll. This is the same as counting each poster by name, once. If you kicked a poll enough, eventually all who want to vote would get a chance and do so. Gathering info on who supports whom, by individual posters names, still you will not get accurate info since all posters will not tell you and you cannot accurately guess who they support (me for instance, what's your guess?). If sample size is your goal not anonymous vs open, then just post a poll and have people vote, kicking it every so often. Put a catchy label on it and explain you are trying to get a "full DU vote".

4, You are saying that you think people will quickly sign up under different usernames in order to vote on a poll? Yet you don't think they will do this and tell you whom they support?

6. "I do not intend to publish the list and will not publish it or disseminate it to anyone." You said you would publish it on DU, you HAVE published it on DU, you say you will continue to publish it on DU so people can check to make sure you have guessed right. Yet you won't publish the list?

"I'm not gonna let anyone opt out cause that would skew the results.", yet you stated anyone could opt out. Now you say no one can, and if they do you will guess and that will be accurate? How? What's your guess on me?

[FlyingSquirrel]

133. Here's some fun stuff

One of the fun things about going through old posts collecting data is you come across interesting stuff like this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3871020

Read post 100.

:-)

I don't have your name in my list. I'm still working on December 21. If you haven't said anything about who you are supporting since then I probably won't have you on my list. Some people are very good at hiding that information. Others (most) just don't care.

3. Problem is, I don't have unlimited time to sit at the keyboard and keep kicking a poll. Or unlimited patience to hope everyone decides to vote on it. And it still leaves the possibility open that a certain candidate's supporters for some reason just don't vote much in polls. As far as your suggestion, I think I'm actually going to do that. Then I'll post the results of both polls simultaneously; one of the polls will have verifiable data and the other will not. It'll be interesting to see how closely they match (or how far they diverge).

4. They could do that. And that would skew a poll which was made up only of people volunteering responses, but would be much less likely under the poll where I'm just going through collecting info based on spontaneously volunteered information from someone who appears to be engaged in discussion.

6. That was before the mods deleted all the threads and told me not to do it any more. I like this place. I'll follow the rules 'cause I'm not some computer whiz who knows how to mask my ip address (if that's even possible). So I'm willing to accept that some people will doubt my numbers, and still feel it's worthwhile doing the poll.

Opt-out: I stated they could, before the decision was made to make the entire thing private and viewable only by me. I like to get things right, so I won't be doing much guessing. Why should I when there are so many people who are perfectly content to state their preference or put it in their avatar / signature line.

[uppityperson]

135. Making it private and voluntary, I have no problem with it.

Don't understand the reason for it, but have no problem with it. I'm the odd sort who likes to wait until the voting is over, and ALL the votes counted to decide who won. (And make sure that the voting is done properly of course.) Forum polls, meh. And I'm not a dude, dude.

[FlyingSquirrel]

136. Sorry dudette

:toast:

[Occulus]

182. I'm tempted to be a script kiddie

and write a script that searches all of DU for known words and phrases and then ascribes them to username by frequency of use just to piss you off.

I don't know how, so I won't, but I'm sorely tempted to learn.

Object lesson: nothing you say or do on this board, aside from PMs, is "private". All your posts are belong to us.

[uppityperson]

183. You don't quite have it yet.

just guess, and then post a list. If you want to be a script kiddie, whatever. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

137. and for all that work, all that effort

what will you end up with?

A poll that says Clinton's support is vastly underrepresented, Kucinich's is overrepresented, and everybody else somewhere in between.

How will that differ from any of the dozens of candidate polls that have already taken place here?

[FlyingSquirrel]

138. Beats me. I haven't finished with it yet.

Not really making any predictions at this point.

[MonkeyFunk]

140. Even if the results are other

than what I describe... so what? What will you have shown?

I just don't understand how this could possibly be worth the amount of effort you're putting into it. What possible outcome can you arrive at that would be remotely interesting and novel?

[FlyingSquirrel]

143. You're right, MF

I won't do it... in fact what's the point of doing anything. I'm just gonna curl up in a ball and die instead.

:argh:

[uppityperson]

146. There are all sorts of us doing all sorts of things with all sorts of tics.

If someone wants to gather this info for themselves, it's better than dangling a foot over a tiger cage or letting your kids run amok at Olive Garden. I am interested in why also, just wondering, not to try to change this poster'z tic. Keep their list private though.

[FlyingSquirrel]

139. P.S.

I'm still on page 19 of GDP. Posts come in faster than I can keep up with. So obviously I've bitten off more than I can chew if I want to get the poll posted by the 30th. So I'm gonna aim for Jan. 2 instead (I want to get it done BEFORE Iowa just because I do) and jump up to page 10. I have a few days off coming up.

[salin]

142. I, for one, really appreciate this post.

it shows respect for those, like me, who raised concerns - and addresses them. I appreciate that. Who among us doesn't sometimes step in a hidden stickerbush and stir the hornets nest while trying to get unstuck? I mean - sometimes one can not know or perceive what will get teh crowd upset. The measure is the grace with which we deal with the aftermath. This post does that well. Thanks.

(Except the seppeku line, I really don't care to even invision eviscerated squirrel ;-) )

[foo_bar]

145. it sounded contrite (self-pitying by the end), but the message was "stay the course"

The poster didn't learn anything from the experience if he/she/they plan to "publish" the same "poll" of the author(s)'s anecdotal observations, with the proviso that these simulated data points are now assumed to be correct in spite of the ample evidence to the contrary.

If someone wants to make sure that I counted their vote correctly they can PM me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2545358#2550226

What vote?

If you want to make this vaguely pseudoscientific, count the number of campaign avatars for each poster (and forget about lurkers/nonrespondents) and multiply that by the results of a grep search for each candidate's name among the potential supporters' posts. Even a Rube Goldberg device would be more consistent than calling this subjective classification system a poll, and presumably spamming the results on the internet.

[FlyingSquirrel]

155. Actually no...

I was speaking tongue in cheek. The question, "why do it?" really makes no sense. The answer is 'cause I feel like it. If I didn't do things I felt like doing (regardless of certain negative people saying I shouldn't) then what would be the point of living? I know, this is getting a bit too philosophical.

Also - "ample evidence to the contrary" is only in your mind. How much more accurate are polls where they call someone up, and only take the ones who choose to answer, and those people have just as much incentive to lie to the pollster as someone on this board? What if the person taking the call accidentally marks the wrong candidate once in a great while? What if the person who gave their answer hangs up and thinks, "You know, I don't know why I said X candidate... I really like Y better." By going through a history of written comments, avatars and signatures I think I have just as much chance of coming up with some valid results as a phone poll. And once again the few errors you pointed out (actually only one specific one) were PRELIMINARY. Very preliminary, since I was going through the data in sequence (oldest date to present) so that I could update things as people changed their minds or as their candidate choice became clearer. And was only on a page that was a week old when I published the preliminary list.

Ok now I'm done explaining... back to work for me. And by the way, sometimes I do this kind of stuff JUST FOR MYSELF (in other words, not to even publish or show anyone.) But this time around I'm gonna publish the results (but not the data, of course) since there are many people who have expressed an interest in those results.

FS

[foo_bar]

164. "I have just as much chance of coming up with some valid results as a phone poll"

I understand that you (possibly) believe this, along with the "margin of error" being a very personal variable such that "anyone who knows me could tell you that my margin of error will be pretty small", but these beliefs are provably false. The reality is closer to the probability of a stopped clock offering valid results, unless you redefine "valid" to mean "invalid but not 100% of the time".

Also - "ample evidence to the contrary" is only in your mind.

Only if one pretends a deleted thread never took place. Which doesn't quite agree with the official story:

Got up, checked the thread and saw that all heck had broken loose, but had to go to work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2545358#2546390

Didn't you notice the guy who wasn't sniffa demanding you remove him from the list because his data point was also fictitious? (I don't know sniffa from Adam, and it's still pretty clear your faith based classification system has some "passing the laughter test" issues after "Poll question: Did some Hillary backers make shit up in desperation?" source or "Steady hand, as in never taking a position on anything. That's the kind of leadership America needs." source)

While I can't revive the thread from Google cache, that doesn't make the brief glimpse into the unaccountable "deduction process" any more transparent, or explain the difference between "preliminary" and non-preliminary data after a vaporized review process, or reconcile a captive "sample" with its constituents' opinions on 1/2/08 and not what they said or implied weeks before (or didn't, in the case of sniffa and one other user-person who saw the 2AM thread, and potentially every other username on the list). "Work" seems to be cited whenever germane questions are raised (but not when asked how a new user might "compile" two sets of books on 400+ DUers in so little spare time), then:

So obviously I've bitten off more than I can chew if I want to get the poll posted by the 30th. So I'm gonna aim for Jan. 2 instead (I want to get it done BEFORE Iowa just because I do) and jump up to page 10. I have a few days off coming up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2545358#2551744

16 hours later:

back to work for me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2545358#2553729

Priorities.

And once again the few errors you pointed out (actually only one specific one) were PRELIMINARY.

Two specific errors if you followed the deleted threads, and zero confirmations of your psychic guesses being verified or even verifiable (that is, a .000 batting average from the brief public glimpse). Calling errors "PRELIMINARY" then alluding to a more complete list nobody but you can see isn't terribly plausible, especially when your excuse for being unable to answer pertinent questions is lack of time.

And was only on a page that was a week old when I published the preliminary list.

What you wrote at the time:

I had a question mark by him in my own (not publicly visible) list and was planning to revisit that assumption.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2545358#2551077

How did you "publish the preliminary list" if it was never "publicly visible"? I don't expect answers to direct questions (like "how will the problem <magically> take care of itself without a mechanism for verifying the (simulated) data?") that pin down this snowball of revisionist justifications, but you might ask yourself these questions if this in fact an independent learning endeavor at DU's faux-(push)-polling expense.

And by the way, sometimes I do this kind of stuff JUST FOR MYSELF

But this isn't one of those times, for whatever reason.

Ok now I'm done explaining...

Forgive me for doubting this statement as well.

[FlyingSquirrel]

165. Good stuff there...

(in the statistics link).

I'm not claiming the deleted thread never happened. Just saying I really can't respond to things I can't see. If people want to re-post them here, and it doesn't get deleted or locked again, then of course I'll be happy to respond.

Regarding sniffa, that was probably the last name I added to the list before publishing it and although it was purely a guess - thrown in to see what he would say - that does not prove that the majority of those on the list were ALSO purely guesses. At any rate, you seem to be ridiculing something which was never allowed to come to fruition and that's pretty pointless. The time to ridicule the results would have been when the actual poll was completed together with the final data list - not during the initial collection of the data, during which I had planned to publish an updated list each day based on peoples' corrections and on my own corrections as I found evidence to change intial assumptions. I'll say this, however: The margin of error in the non-public one I'm still working on will obviously now be higher than it otherwise would have been because of the fact that nobody will be able to review the data and make corrections. I'll have to work harder to make sure that I eliminate the most questionable data.

Regarding my work schedule, my job is a demanding one. I am required to be available for 14 hours a day, and can be worked up to 12 hours within that time frame. Anything else I can turn down - but I can be worked up to 14 hours total over a 20-hour period if I accept the work. Often I get a large split shift and have the middle of the day off. Fortunately at the end of the day they are required to give me at least 9 hours off. Needless to say I usually get only 4-6 hours of sleep per night.

As far as saying problems would "take care of themselves", that was a poor choice of words - I meant they would be taken care of by me as I went through my data collection process.

And I've explained the reason that I plan to publish the results instead of keeping them to myself - namely that many people have expressed interest in it. Look on the bright side - I'm also doing a completely voluntary, open survey at the same time where you can see the same data I'm looking at and will therefore be able to challenge any numerical results I post on it. I'll give you my methodology, you can give me yours.

:silly:

[foo_bar]

166. "The margin of error in the non-public one I'm still working on will obviously now be higher"

At which confidence level?

For extra credit: is it possible to measure sampling error in a nonrandom convenience sample?

I'll give you my methodology, you can give me yours.

"Methodology" might be an overstatement.

[FlyingSquirrel]

167. You're making an assumption here...

You're assuming that I'm claiming to be a pollster (or something close to it). I'm not. I'm just saying I personally have confidence in my ability to come to a very good approximation of the true level of support for each candidate on DU. But I'm playing by my own rules, not those which you link to or anyone else tells me I should. So if that means that you and certain others decide that my results are completely invalid (and I'm sure you will) then so be it. Can't please everyone so you gotta please yourself, know what I mean?

:smoke:

[foo_bar]

168. the problem isn't me knowing it's invalid, it's consensus reality

Hint #2 on the extra credit problem:

Since this study was conducted using a convenience sample, it is not technically possible to calculate a margin of sampling error for the results. Had this been a true random sample of all public school teachers and administrators, the sampling error for a sample of approximately 900 people would have been ±3 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13390

[FlyingSquirrel]

169. I understand the convenience sample problem

And I am not attempting to generalize the results of this DU poll to the entire US or in fact any larger group. Only thing I am doing is attempting to guage the overall support that DU'ers who post (and do not lurk without ever posting) have for each candidate. Nothing more.

On edit:

I'm also attempting to reduce the sampling error by taking data from a fairly long period of time (approximately 10 days), during which people's choices may change, but by taking only the most recent declaration one can come up with a good sample together with a low margin of error regarding DU'ers' overall candidate support for the date on which the results are posted.

[uppityperson]

171. "only the most recent declaration"???

So you are not compiling a list of what you guess those who don't declare to you? You are only working with those who tell you whom they support, and this is move valid than an anonymous poll? I thought the reason for this was to figure out everyone, not just those declaring? And somehow your guesses are as accurate as declaring so don't do an anonymous poll since that will only be those who vote and therefore be inaccurate. But your "assumptions" and guesses are more accurate because everyone will declare to you.

w.t.f?

[FlyingSquirrel]

172. WTF indeed...

I'm not exactly sure what you just said. I'm re-reading it several times and still not sure I understand it completely. Lemme give it a shot. Once again I used a poor choice of words - what I meant was, if someone 10 days ago had either declared for a candidate or had that candidate's picture in their avatar or name in signature line, and then yesterday I see that they have changed their mind, or their avatar / signature now shows support for a different candidate, then I will use the candidate they have most recently shown support for in the poll.

I'm doing two polls. One is this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3906119&mesg_id=3906119

in which only those who choose to participate in the poll will be counted. (And by the way, they're not declaring to ME... they're declaring to anyone who cares to read the thread.)

The other poll is the one which a couple of people still seem to wish to dissuade me from doing, or attack my motives for doing, and I really do not at this point understand why those few seem to feel so threatened or angered by it since I will not be publishing the raw data and since regardless, there will be many who rightfully will question its validity (just like many rightfully question the validity of the many polls both on DU and in the media).

Finally it would be completely impossible for me to figure out who "everyone" is supporting. I'm only looking to get a good sample size, perhaps somewhere 800-1000 users. I currently have about 650 on my list and about 25 of those currently have question marks by them. If they still have question marks by them when I'm done, they will not be included in my final tally. I might put someone down as supporting a candidate and follow it with a question mark if they don't have that candidate in their avatar/signature and haven't declared for the candidate, but have made statements in support of the candidate. If later on down the road they don't change their avatar/signature or declare that they are either leaning toward or supporting that candidate, they'll be excluded from the totals.

So the only real assumptions / guesses I'm making is that (1) if someone says they support or are leaning toward a candidate, then they do; (2) your average person is not gonna have an avatar with a picture of a candidate they don't support; (3) your average person is not gonna include a message supporting a candidate in their signature line if they don't in fact support that candidate.

Now there's a possibility that someone could have an avatar or include someone in their signature line that is not their FIRST choice; but with a large enough sample size, that kind of thing will not lead to a significant error margin. Plus, I will often notice if someone's avatar/signature does not match their statements and I will put a question mark after their name.

Also, I'm not trying to predict how each person will actually vote in real life (or even whether they will vote at all), and I'm not trying to predict how firm their support is for the candidate they are either leaning toward or stating that they support; merely looking to be able to say that at this point in time, a certain percentage of DU users who at least occasionally post, and who show support for any candidate, are leaning toward or supporting X, Y, Z candidates in these percentages.

[uppityperson]

173. Sorry, am joshing now. Thanks for not publishing the list.

Do what you want, keep track of what you want, if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone, I really don't care if I understand. I question why and the validity, but whatever. Just for the record, I'm not sure since I don't have input before general, but will most likely vote for the democratic candidate then.

I like to do Soduko. It proves nothing to me but is a mind calming sort of thing. Puzzles are fun. My "wtf" post was going in circles, rather aimlessly, but have fun.

Thank you for not publishing and I'll quit fooling around about this now. By the way, I don't trust any polls, and really really really wish that nothing would be announced until at least everywhere polls were closed, and not finalized or predicted even until all the votes counted. Sometimes being patient can be a real virtue. Yes, we may not know for a while but I'd rather have accuracy. Next rant, non-verifiable electronic voting, but enough for now.

[FlyingSquirrel]

175. We have Sudoku in common. :-) It does calm the mind. n/t

[foo_bar]

180. I'm afraid the hints were of no use

Your first impression:

I'm also attempting to reduce the sampling error by taking data from a fairly long period of time

Intro to stats:

F. Disadvantages of Nonprobability Samples:

1. Sampling error cannot be calculated. Thus, the minimum required sample size cannot be calculated which suggests that the researcher may sample too few or too many members of the population of interest.

http://www.fgcu.edu/cob/mkt/langford/mrnote3.htm

Computing sampling error is appropriate only with probability samples. Sampling error cannot be computed with research that uses nonprobability samples because not everyone has an equal chance of being selected. This is one reason nonprobability samples are used only in preliminary research or in studies where error rates are not considered important.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ay5lKmAw2UcC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102

Your belief:

one can come up with a good sample together with a low margin of error regarding DU'ers' overall candidate support for the date on which the results are posted.

Science-as-we-know-it:

In these cases, where researchers use “convenience,” judgment-based, or quota sampling methods, sampling error cannot be calculated. In other words, one must use a probability-based sampling method to be able to say that the results are accurate within a certain “margin of error.” This is one of the first things to look for when reviewing survey results.

http://www.humanespot.org/node/2644

It might be helpful to familiarize yourself with the jargon before taking wild guesses as to its meaning.

[Lil Missy]

134. "First: DU is not real life"

I have a different version of that. I am learning that DU is the complete opposite of the real life Democratic spectrum. What I see here is the 3% that support Kucinich, and the other 97% of the real world wants one on the 3 top tier candidates. I agree with Kucinich too, but he is too radical and is a bit creepy, and I don't think he is worth losing the middle votes and Independents to satisfy the left fringe.

I will Primary for my candidate, and will vote for ANY Democratic nominee in the General. But C'mon, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance.

And don't EVEN get me started on that fuckwad Nader.

[Akoto]

153. With all respect ...

It's really better to ask people before compiling a list about them, regardless of how harmless you think the info might be. More than a few users don't appreciate that. It's why programs to get rid of tracking cookies are so popular, even though the cookies themselves are otherwise benign.

[mudesi]

157. Put me down as a KUCINICH supporter

If people have a problem with this, maybe they ought not to post on a message board in the first place.

Who cares if people know "lynyrd_skynyrd" supports Kucinich? What's "creepy" about it? What a ridiculous argument. Do the people who have a problem with this use Google? Because they track your surfing habits and target you with ads. How many of them shop online? Bank online? Information is being recorded every time you browse to a new web page.

[FlyingSquirrel]

162. Thanks for responding - please re-post your response here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3906119&mesg_id=3906119

[LostinVA]

170. FS -- change my vote on your "list" -- I'm voting for Huckabee in the primary

I feel like skewing your "poll."

[FlyingSquirrel]

174. lol!

PS you're not on it yet.. you do a pretty good job of hiding your intentions. In fact the people who were most outraged seem to be ones who are most careful to keep their vote a secret - makes sense.

[LostinVA]

176. I'm not on it "yet?"

Your whole post sounds like a veiled threat, and I haven't hidden my "intentions" at all.

Your agenda, whatever it is, is CREEPY.

[uppityperson]

177. Yup, we who have hidden our preferences are hard to guess.

Silly us and all. Peace and onward.

[FlyingSquirrel]

179. Still going on with the "threat" thing... Look if it makes you happy

I will not put your username on it even if I see you make some flat declaration for someone. It's not like it is going to be an all-inclusive list - probably going to limit it to 1000 names out of who knows how many thousands that come here.

[LWolf]

181. still DK, fwiw. n/t