Highway enthusiasm survey

Hi All,

For the month of May, the Worldwide Highway Library will be conducting a
survey on highway enthusiasm. The objective is to collect some data
about highway aficionados and aggregately see what it's all about! Feel
free to answer as little or as many questions that you'd like.
Remember, there are no wrong answers!

http://worldwide-hwys.calrog.com/poll/0905.php

Thanks in advance for your participation. The final results will become
publicly available on 30-May.

Cheers,

Carl Rogers
"Adding human experience to highway enthusiasm"
********
Calrog.com, http://www.calrog.com :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An integrated media arm in Turn-of-the-Century PC Development,
International Highway Research, and Interpersonal Psychology. Has
served your home country and ninety-five of its worldwide neighbours
since 2000, through Internet downstream and published works.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/calrog
********

Boooooooooooooring!

On May 10, 12:53 am, Carl Rogers > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> For the month of May, the Worldwide Highway Library will be conducting a
> survey on highway enthusiasm. The objective is to collect some data
> about highway aficionados and aggregately see what it's all about! Feel
> free to answer as little or as many questions that you'd like.
> Remember, there are no wrong answers!
>
> http://worldwide-hwys.calrog.com/poll/0905.php
>
> Thanks in advance for your participation. The final results will become
> publicly available on 30-May.
>
> Cheers,
>

Problems with the so-called survey:

1) Digital divide: You're assuming roadgeeks that have internet
access are representative of roadgeeks as a whole. Moreover, you're
assuming that roadgeeks that post on the boards that you advertised
the survey to, a subset of those with internet access, are
representative.

2) The employment question has overlapping categories.

3) You don't allow people to enter in what they mean by "other,"
which seems to be a significant response from the results I saw.
That's the equivalent of getting no information, or just confirming
that your options were totally off.

He still has me banned--though I was able to access it from a
different IP. The survey is of women's-magazine quality, more or
less, and at the time I took it, I was the only person who had chosen
the options of (1) living in the UK, (2) choosing to read "at the drop
of a hat," and (3) "Why bother?" in terms of relationships. (I was
unique in other respects but I can't remember them now.)

I look forward to the Comrade's blog entry on this.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/argatlam_roads/

wrote:
> He still has me banned--though I was able to access it from a
> different IP. The survey is of women's-magazine quality, more or
> less, and at the time I took it, I was the only person who had chosen
> the options of (1) living in the UK, (2) choosing to read "at the drop
> of a hat," and (3) "Why bother?" in terms of relationships. (I was
> unique in other respects but I can't remember them now.)
>
> I look forward to the Comrade's blog entry on this.
>

Sounds like it's not even worth me going out of my way to get around my
banishment to look at the survey. Sounds REALLY lame. Which,
considering the source, I wouldn't have expected anything else.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

--
Et in terra pax

On May 10, 8:06 am, Rich Piehl
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > He still has me banned--though I was able to access it from a
> > different IP. The survey is of women's-magazine quality, more or
> > less, and at the time I took it, I was the only person who had chosen
> > the options of (1) living in the UK, (2) choosing to read "at the drop
> > of a hat," and (3) "Why bother?" in terms of relationships. (I was
> > unique in other respects but I can't remember them now.)
>
> > I look forward to the Comrade's blog entry on this.
>
> Sounds like it's not even worth me going out of my way to get around my
> banishment to look at the survey. Sounds REALLY lame. Which,
> considering the source, I wouldn't have expected anything else.
>
> Take care,
> Rich
>
> God bless the USA
>
> --
> Et in terra pax

Not to mention it's poorly programmed; instead of answering all the
questions then hitting a submit button, you have to submit each answer
one at a time, then refreshing the page to show the results for each
individual question, effectively quadrupling or more the time it takes
to do the survey.

I hope saying this isn't a bananable offense; I don't know what I'd do
without the world of français analog components that is calrog.com!

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> He still has me banned--though I was able to access it from a
> different IP. The survey is of women's-magazine quality, more or
> less, and at the time I took it, I was the only person who had chosen
> the options of (1) living in the UK, (2) choosing to read "at the drop
> of a hat," and (3) "Why bother?" in terms of relationships. (I was
> unique in other respects but I can't remember them now.)

Or you can make up totally false answers and skew the survey.

On May 10, 1:13 pm, "Adam Prince" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > He still has me banned--though I was able to access it from a
> > different IP. The survey is of women's-magazine quality, more or
> > less, and at the time I took it, I was the only person who had chosen
> > the options of (1) living in the UK, (2) choosing to read "at the drop
> > of a hat," and (3) "Why bother?" in terms of relationships. (I was
> > unique in other respects but I can't remember them now.)
>
> Or you can make up totally false answers and skew the survey.

Except every survey view is another site hit. That's why each
question submits separately and then shows you results - each question
thus gets two site hits, instead of the entire survey getting two.

[Mr. Alpert:]

> > Or you can make up totally false answers and skew the survey.
>
> Except every survey view is another site hit. That's why each
> question submits separately and then shows you results - each question
> thus gets two site hits, instead of the entire survey getting two.

Of course. This survey is really just an opportunity for another
installation in his game of reading his access logs, banning his
critics, and then daring them to challenge the ban. I am sure he is
monitoring this thread unfiltered, notwithstanding his claim to have
me killfiled, and will be going through his logs to find out what IP
address I used for the survey.

I have made it easy for him by admitting my unique answers to certain
questions. That means that he can pick me out by going through his
logs and finding out who answered X to Y question at such and such a
time before the timestamp on my post upthread.

P.S. Scott en Azatlán is correct upthread; so I make my apologies to
'Redbook', 'Cosmopolitan', and 'Vanity Fair' (all of which have helped
me kill boredom in supermarket queues and barbershops).

Adam Prince wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> He still has me banned--though I was able to access it from a
>> different IP. The survey is of women's-magazine quality, more or
>> less, and at the time I took it, I was the only person who had chosen
>> the options of (1) living in the UK, (2) choosing to read "at the drop
>> of a hat," and (3) "Why bother?" in terms of relationships. (I was
>> unique in other respects but I can't remember them now.)
>
> Or you can make up totally false answers and skew the survey.
>
>


Now who would do such a dastardly thing?

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

--
Et in terra pax