Voters are influenced?
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1206 posts since 10 Apr, 2002 from Born, living and probably dying in Germany
More than that - you´re monitored by some thousands of kvr secret service members, Lady J...CypherOne wrote:it's a conspiracy Lady J...
Listen to some Monkey-Music-
- KVRAF
- 4319 posts since 20 Feb, 2004
In this particular poll, it could be argued that any substantial qualification would invalidate the meaning behind choosing option 3, which is that the person isn't influenced by anything but the song's merit. It would be akin to saying, "Nothing but the song's quality influences me, but here's something else that influences me." Does that make sense?whyterabbyt wrote:Lady J quoth What bollocks.
Ironic.
People vote one way in the poll and then say... "I vote this way cause I like the song but...:" in the thread itself.
So? The poll is by necessity a set of fixed options, which will almost certainly fail to cover all possible eventualities. People's comments allow them to provide the necessary level of detail which the poll cannot cover.
Look if you have to say but you have NO reason and no business choosing the 3rd option.
Incorrect. If its the closest option, then yes they bloody do.
This may be more a problem with the poll's construction than a poll taker's "honesty" or whatnot (see below).
I think you misinterpret what Lady J said; she didn't say the poll responders were dishonest, but rather that the construction of poll itself is dishonest.Perhaps the poll needs to be expanded to include:
<snip>
NOW THAT would be an HONEST poll.
No, it would just be a finer-grained set of options. You obviously dont understand what 'honest' means. You obviously can't understand that 'fitting as close as possible to a restricted set of options and then explaining my choice in detail' isn't dishonest.
I think it would be more accurate (or less emotionally-loaded) to say that the poll is improperly constructed than "dishonest", but I agree with her in spirit. There at least needs to be a 4th option.
A well-behaved signature.
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35446 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
JerGoertz quoth
In this particular poll, it could be argued that any substantial qualification would invalidate the meaning behind choosing option 3, which is that the person isn't influenced by anything but the song's merit.
It could be argued, yes. But you'd have to quibble over 'substantial qualification' first.
But you're in territory where the dialogue surrounding a poll typically expands on the details of someone's choice. Therefore its pretty much expected that the comments have more useful information than the (typically imprecise) poll.
This is, after all, an informal discussion, not a statistical analysis based around a carefully designed market research form.
It would be akin to saying, "Nothing but the song's quality influences me, but here's something else that influences me." Does that make sense?
The two other choices relate to 'interpersonal' interactions between the voter and 'candidate'. The third option is poorly phrased, but implicit in it is the fact that any other reasoning is non-personal. The formulator of the poll's first post quite clearly is concentrating on personal issues. Level of detail on the 'other' option would thus appear to be unimportant to his actual concerns.
This may be more a problem with the poll's construction than a poll taker's "honesty" or whatnot (see below).
No, I think its a problem with people misunderstanding the original poster's focus.
I think you misinterpret what Lady J said; she didn't say the poll responders were dishonest, but rather that the construction of poll itself is dishonest.
Except that her criticism was clearly aimed at people's actual responses, ie their followup postings.
She was clearly, and unequivocally saying 'why be so dishonest as to use this option and then post an explanation which doesnt entirely gel with the option chosen'
I think it would be more accurate (or less emotionally-loaded) to say that the poll is improperly constructed than "dishonest",
True
but I agree with her in spirit. There at least needs to be a 4th option.
Only if you misunderstand the apparant focus of the poll... interpersonal conflict's effect on voting... Any quibble over the phrasing of the 3rd option only comes from missing its point in relation to the first two. The third is a 'catch-all' which is assumes no interpersonal conflict.
In this particular poll, it could be argued that any substantial qualification would invalidate the meaning behind choosing option 3, which is that the person isn't influenced by anything but the song's merit.
It could be argued, yes. But you'd have to quibble over 'substantial qualification' first.
But you're in territory where the dialogue surrounding a poll typically expands on the details of someone's choice. Therefore its pretty much expected that the comments have more useful information than the (typically imprecise) poll.
This is, after all, an informal discussion, not a statistical analysis based around a carefully designed market research form.
It would be akin to saying, "Nothing but the song's quality influences me, but here's something else that influences me." Does that make sense?
The two other choices relate to 'interpersonal' interactions between the voter and 'candidate'. The third option is poorly phrased, but implicit in it is the fact that any other reasoning is non-personal. The formulator of the poll's first post quite clearly is concentrating on personal issues. Level of detail on the 'other' option would thus appear to be unimportant to his actual concerns.
This may be more a problem with the poll's construction than a poll taker's "honesty" or whatnot (see below).
No, I think its a problem with people misunderstanding the original poster's focus.
I think you misinterpret what Lady J said; she didn't say the poll responders were dishonest, but rather that the construction of poll itself is dishonest.
Except that her criticism was clearly aimed at people's actual responses, ie their followup postings.
She was clearly, and unequivocally saying 'why be so dishonest as to use this option and then post an explanation which doesnt entirely gel with the option chosen'
I think it would be more accurate (or less emotionally-loaded) to say that the poll is improperly constructed than "dishonest",
True
but I agree with her in spirit. There at least needs to be a 4th option.
Only if you misunderstand the apparant focus of the poll... interpersonal conflict's effect on voting... Any quibble over the phrasing of the 3rd option only comes from missing its point in relation to the first two. The third is a 'catch-all' which is assumes no interpersonal conflict.
Last edited by whyterabbyt on Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1206 posts since 10 Apr, 2002 from Born, living and probably dying in Germany
Sorry, I should have think about this more deeply before posting it.JerGoertz wrote:I think it would be more accurate (or less emotionally-loaded) to say that the poll is improperly constructed than "dishonest", but I agree with her in spirit. There at least needs to be a 4th option.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 1206 posts since 10 Apr, 2002 from Born, living and probably dying in Germany
whyterabbyt wrote: but I agree with her in spirit. There at least needs to be a 4th option.
Only if you misunderstand the apparant focus of the poll... interpersonal conflict's effect on voting... Any quibble over the phrasing of the 3rd option only comes from missing its point in relation to the first two. The third is a 'catch-all' which is assumes no interpersonal conflict.
-
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
I have only been in two contests, and I have done well neither time.
This is no doubt due to a conspiracy against acoustic drummers.
Clearly the makers of drum machines, and drum based sample packs and applications are united against us, because we threaten them.
In fact my life may be in danger as we speak.
And so, while I still have time, I will tell you all the secret that infallibly proves the existence of this, the real kvr cabal.
The secret is......who is that?.....Get away from me with that vst stungun..... NOOOOO!!!!
This is no doubt due to a conspiracy against acoustic drummers.
Clearly the makers of drum machines, and drum based sample packs and applications are united against us, because we threaten them.
In fact my life may be in danger as we speak.
And so, while I still have time, I will tell you all the secret that infallibly proves the existence of this, the real kvr cabal.
The secret is......who is that?.....Get away from me with that vst stungun..... NOOOOO!!!!
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35446 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Just for interest: I wonder if voters of the monthly contests are influenced (i.e. do not vote for a musician´s track even though the voter loves that song) because of the following:
1. the musician gave bad review(s) to the voter´s song(s)
2. the musician did not vote for the voter´s song(s) in the past.
I would say that nothing applies to me.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- jaaathmaster
- 2690 posts since 1 Jun, 2001 from Marlow, S. Bucks, UK
Pff... It was a light hearted discussion... Maybe a better constructed poll would have been less contentious but there's no need for others to get uppity about it.AndreasE wrote: Sorry, I should have think about this more deeply before posting it.
FWIW, Lady J was in my top 15 or so, and merely failed to make my top 10 because there were so many other great tunes this month. I found her tune rather enjoyable... Always good to hear some melodic but hard hitting drum'n'bass with good vocals (ease up on the sibilants though).
Music with dinner is an insult both to the cook and the violinist.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111292 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
nah voters are obviously against lady j
june 2005 - themed - clinch that record deal
1 - lady J - mr right (now)
2 - barnadine - love strikes
3 - UTM - athens
i mean the evidence is right there...
perhaps people this month as its a dance contest do actually dance to stuff other than "dance" music.
i myself enjoy a good meander to stuff like coil n throbbing gristle,but find it hard to keep pace with stuff like techno beats n stuff.
remember there is a lot of people here who cant even dance(me) so a music to make people dance contest is a misnomer if you think that just means "beats for feets"
june 2005 - themed - clinch that record deal
1 - lady J - mr right (now)
2 - barnadine - love strikes
3 - UTM - athens
i mean the evidence is right there...
perhaps people this month as its a dance contest do actually dance to stuff other than "dance" music.
i myself enjoy a good meander to stuff like coil n throbbing gristle,but find it hard to keep pace with stuff like techno beats n stuff.
remember there is a lot of people here who cant even dance(me) so a music to make people dance contest is a misnomer if you think that just means "beats for feets"
-
- jaaathmaster
- 2690 posts since 1 Jun, 2001 from Marlow, S. Bucks, UK
Indeed! That was the idea behind the wording of the contestvurt wrote: perhaps people this month as its a dance contest do actually dance to stuff other than "dance" music.
Indeed, I was just listening to some mad polyrhythmic African music last night (some documentary on BBC2vurt wrote: remember there is a lot of people here who cant even dance(me) so a music to make people dance contest is a misnomer if you think that just means "beats for feets"
) and thinking how infectiously danceable it was, if not what most would think of as 'dance' music 
And Ixox and Barnadine's waltz/tangos were also rather booty-shaking...Music with dinner is an insult both to the cook and the violinist.
-
- KVRAF
- 4908 posts since 10 Aug, 2004 from Colorado Springs
Polls are always flawed on the incomplete side of things - if they weren't there would be no need for a poll!! The researchers would already have all possible responses locked up. Having taken some classes on questionnaire design, some tips I've gathered when gathering opinions, is to provide an 'other' or 'Does not apply' or some other 'exit' category in the poll. And if you are going to do that, one must allow for comments. Because this forum allows polls with comments, it's halfway there. All that is necessary is to include 'other' categories in your poll.
Perhaps a new thread should be started called 'How do you cast your votes for KVR song comps?' I gave a list of mine. One thing I know, that is the right way for me to vote. The way you vote is your own business. If you don't like the way I vote, then don't enter the comp!
Some people make up a subjective evaluation form - that's cool too.
But I stand by my list (sorry LadyJ). See my reviews of your songs for June & July for why I didn't vote for your tracks. No conspiracy there at all. I notice that Griels has pointed out the same criticisms that I had with the sibilants; quite a turn-off. And the fade in/out - well I can't get past that as it does seem to violate the 'should be composed for the comp' rule. That's my opinion and that's what I use to vote. Make a song without fade in/out that's under 2 minutes and I'll sit up and take notice.
Perhaps a new thread should be started called 'How do you cast your votes for KVR song comps?' I gave a list of mine. One thing I know, that is the right way for me to vote. The way you vote is your own business. If you don't like the way I vote, then don't enter the comp!
Some people make up a subjective evaluation form - that's cool too.
But I stand by my list (sorry LadyJ). See my reviews of your songs for June & July for why I didn't vote for your tracks. No conspiracy there at all. I notice that Griels has pointed out the same criticisms that I had with the sibilants; quite a turn-off. And the fade in/out - well I can't get past that as it does seem to violate the 'should be composed for the comp' rule. That's my opinion and that's what I use to vote. Make a song without fade in/out that's under 2 minutes and I'll sit up and take notice.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 111292 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
3*s wrote:I would never vote for someone who makes a good track but is a complete ass.
Not necessarily because of how they reviewed me, just in general.
out of interest do you have the same standards for music you purchase?
i know for a fact many artists i love musically are absolute tosspots.for one example anyone who has seen badly drawn oy live knows what i mean...what an ass
but on vinyl the guy is a genius