TF Lead Indicators

[Makida]

It seems there is some controversy as to whether or not we should have polls about poll wording. I think we need to make a poll to decide.

[slap]

Well it is an accepted phenomena in psychology that the wording of the question affects how people answer, even if the literal meaning is the same. Sometimes this affect can be drastic.

[Makida]

*effect. =_=

But, yes. 6_6 However, I didn't think this question was all that unclear, really. >_>

... I voted to keep the indicators.

[Sgt.Pepper]

So do you not want to not vote for George W Bush? FFS make your minds!

[RoboTel]

QUOTE (madpeople @ Jun 7 2009, 02:25 PM) Actually, that's a different issue to the one in this thread.

Your example is where the question is un-impartial i.e. it is suggesting the answer you should vote for.
An example of that in this case would be "Should TF be made better by changing their lead indicators to be like the other un-broken factions?"

Here the case is ambigous wording, where it is unclear whether yes or no means you are agreeing with the change or not. - So you get people voting no who want it changed as well as people correctly voting yes.

Look, I am not saying we should re-do the poll, it is good enough. That said, the use of the wording 'normal' creates a status-quo bias such that those who do not have significant opinions but like things the way they are will tend to vote for this when they otherwise wouldn't. A more realistic way to overcome this bias would be to as if they would mind TF lead indicators changed to the standard settings. There is a great deal of likely bias in the survey, but I am not sure that it would account for quite the lead that was seen. If it was closer a revote might be appropriate, but as it stands I think we can just say the other option 'might have won' were things different.

[Adam4]

The issue has been decided. Any comments regarding polls should be taken to an appropriate thread.