Improving our WOV polls....

One of the things I do try to do is get useful information out of our polls, particularly on new game opinions.

However, the way our poll questions are generally structured, it's hard to pull useful info from it; such things as "I'm a bigot - check here," and "Only if it is Tuesday and it is raining" dilute the Positive, neutral, and negative groupings of our polls because it is a wasted vote where we do not know the pluses and minuses.

May I suggest:
1. Make the top three choices "Yes, I play it," "Maybe," and "No, it's no good" - so we know where the item, when polled, stands.
2. Have choices 4 and up be the specifics, such as 'No - house edge too high", "No, it has no juice to it" and the like, with a "check more than one" allowed.
3. Add funny stuff at the bottom if desired.

Opinions?

The polls generally allow for multiple picks, so you still get your "top end" data of would/would not play.. The reason the pulls probably have half their picks is because they're FUN/FUNNY with the comedy choices as well as the real choices. You'd get far less "data" and participation by saying "now now everyone, this is serious data mining and we want to use you for your 'random crowd' opinion."

We're not here for your poles of your games. We're here to be a community, have fun, learn, and share information.

...EVERY POLE I will ever post on this site will have something to do with making fun of Axel.

Quote: Romes

We're not here for your poles of your games. We're here to be a community, have fun, learn, and share information.

This isn't just for me, so please excuse me here for inquiring if our polls could be better, that is to say, so that they might somehow also be a bit more useful as polls, and useful to the community.
Keep in mind that this doesn't exclude having fun choices as a part of a poll.

I think you'd get much more valuable information reading the posts than looking at the polls. There are no names attached to the polls, so you don't know what kind of people are voting Yes/No/etc. But I do agree with you, somehow, PGD, that the polls are about worthless, excluding their comedic value.

Call me a bigot, maybe.

Quote: RS

I think you'd get much more valuable information reading the posts than looking at the polls....

+1

I'm still in shock this thread about polls doesn't have a... poll. For shame.

Quote: Paigowdan

One of the things I do try to do is get useful information out of our polls, particularly on new game opinions.

However, the way our poll questions are generally structured, it's hard to pull useful info from it; such things as "I'm a bigot - check here," and "Only if it is Tuesday and it is raining" dilute the Positive, neutral, and negative groupings of our polls because it is a wasted vote where we do not know the pluses and minuses.

May I suggest:
1. Make the top three choices "Yes, I play it," "Maybe," and "No, it's no good" - so we know where the item, when polled, stands.
2. Have choices 4 and up be the specifics, such as 'No - house edge too high", "No, it has no juice to it" and the like, with a "check more than one" allowed.
3. Add funny stuff at the bottom if desired.

Opinions?

If only RonC, KKK, ADZ, Paradigm, Face, Zcore13 et al. are respondents to any given POTUS contest polls, then John Miller, who once raped a 13 years old girl will get 100% of the vote.

The sampling is too small, and the respondents to this site are not representative the whole population of the “gambler” market. WOV polls will only give its readers false sense of security/insecurity, and therefore, should NEVER be taken seriously, and is for entertainment only.

The people here are representative of gamblers, as gamblers. It is one gamblers' group.
At times, they have given good voting results on some items, and I had noticed that, and they had expressed good opinions. I take the voting results as being of a limited view, but of some small value.

It doesn't give a false sense of security to get an iota of usefulness out of something here. Please forgive me for hoping that some things here might be a little bit more useful or constructive.

I now regret starting this thread.

Quote: Paigowdan

The people here are representative of gamblers, as gamblers. It is one gamblers' group.
At times, they have given good voting results on some items, and I had noticed that, and they had expressed good opinions. I take the voting results as being of a limited view, but of some small value.

It doesn't give a false sense of security to get an iota of usefulness out of something here. Please forgive me for hoping that some things here might be a little bit more useful or constructive.

I now regret starting this thread.

They are gamblers, but they are not representative of the whole gaming market or population.

It is only helpful if you receive construction criticism or honest opinions. But the thing is you don't know any such inputs are constructive criticisms or honest opinions. You can get false sense of security/insecurity because people can be polite and/or rude.

I might or might not know a thing or two about gambling and game design, and I also know very well that this place is not representative of all gamblers.

Indeed, I had called this place 'the One percenters" - as not being fully representative of gamblers. Trust me, I get that.

There were times, however, that I thought enough of this group of gamblers that their opinions (and votes) might, at least on occasion, have some small merit or utility, - and that I had wished that the voting choices were clearer, as to be a bit more indicative of what we really think.

Again, I have heard enough now, and I will reconsider this view.

Quote: 777

They are gamblers, but they are not representative of the whole gaming market or population.

I'd bet that 99.73% of casino goers have never heard of WoO or WoV

If a poll here was in anyway representative of gamblers, there would be no 6/5 BJ tables.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'd bet that 99.73% of casino goers have never heard of WoO or WoV

Some years ago, I was hole-carding a game. The guy next to me recommended WOO and to check out the strategy charts. From what I remember, he didn't know the strategy himself.

Quote: RS

Some years ago, I was hole-carding a game. The guy next to me recommended WOO and to check out the strategy charts. From what I remember, he didn't know the strategy himself.

Might've been me :-)