I'm not sure since when exactly colors in signatures are allowed, but they're annoying the hell out of me. There are a lot of people who use several bright colors in their signatures, which make browsing through a thread really annoying.

I don't think I'm the only one thinking about this this way, and I also don't see any need why these are allowed in the first place, infact I'm kinda surprised that this is still allowed.

I think it would be a good thing if it's all one color, you still could use bold or italic for example.

Regards,

I thought colors would brighten this place up and make it more attractive. I don't like them.

I thought I could get used to them. I can't.

I thought I ate too much turkey. I did.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
I thought I ate too much turkey. I did.

Here, here!

Except I have had over 2 months to get over it...

*God Bless Canada* We don't squish two turkeys so close together...(Thanksgiving & Then Christmas)

On colours, you will probably see mine change to a dark red, and a dark green today... :D

I voted 'No" also. What was done to brighten things up, turns into a contest of who can draw the most attention to their Ad in their Sig. Sometimes my toes curl with embarassment seeing what some host owners do. :blush:

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I voted 'No" also. What was done to brighten things up, turns into a contest of who can draw the most attention to their Ad in their Sig. Sometimes my toes curl with embarassment seeing what some host owners do. :blush:

Indeed, and there's really no point in that, which is one of the reasons I think the colors should be gone. If you want to bright things up why don't allow colors in usertitles for example :P IMO, brighting things up wouldn't be needed at all tho :) Don't smileys like meh little bananah :banana: make this a happy place anyway?

I think ppl should use colors if they want or dont use them if they dont want but please leave this place with some freedoms

Join us and turn off sigs in your user settings :)

Another 'No' here :)

Somebody should make a hack to strip colors in sigs through the member control panel. Allthough they dont bother me I would like to see everybody happy. I wonder if its possible :confused:

-Dave

I like colors in sigs. Sure, I think some of the sigs here are tacky (including my own!), but what is life without a bit of color? :)

Originally posted by Simpli-Erica
I like colors in sigs. Sure, I think some of the sigs here are tacky (including my own!), but what is life without a bit of color? :)


Monochromatic? :D

Originally posted by systemexpose
Somebody should make a hack to strip colors in sigs through the member control panel. Allthough they dont bother me I would like to see everybody happy. I wonder if its possible :confused:

-Dave

Doubt everyone'll be happy, personally I wouldn;'t mind if the colors off, as we'd just go back to all black signatures, but I'm sure many will be unhappy bout it.

I voted for "I don't care" :)

A little blue here and some red there, and a touch of green every now and then is ok.

It's the bright neon greens, yellows, pinks, etc that bother me.


.....I've always wondered what this place would look like with 2 line, multi-color, no smilie or ascii art, standard font size sigs ;)...

I don't mind the color in the sigs. I think it adds a bit of personality.

Originally posted by inogenius
I don't mind the color in the sigs. I think it adds a bit of personality.

Well, in some cases it can reflect someone's favorite color :D

Overall, I think the new sigs do add some new pretty colors to the forum, for many it looks good, but for others, it's just plain annoying.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
I thought colors would brighten this place up and make it more attractive. I don't like them.

I thought I could get used to them. I can't.
Originally posted by Rochen
Another 'No' here :)
Don't take this personally, as it isn't meant to be, but you two are the head admins around here now (far as I can figure out). You both have been on enough forums to know what colors in signatures look like, have seen it on many forums, etc. Why did you guys change it in the first place? If you had never seen it on a forum before and colors in signatures were some ground-breaking new thing that has never been tried before and no one had ever seen it, then I would understand that maybe we tried it and it didn't work out. But that isn't the case.

Personally, I don't care if the signatures have color or not (it doesn't bother me as it apparently bothers others). Have colors, don't have colors, whatever -but let's just make a decision about it (even though it's after the fact), and live with it either way. Next time, if it's such a big issue (which IMHO it isn't as I said), understand that some things need to be considered before they are enabled.

We didn't start the poll.

I suppose there'd never be a reason to test drive a car. That is, if you've driven cars.

Why try on a pair of shoes?

Just because something is right for somewhere, doesn't mean it's right for everywhere.

Sometimes you have to try something out before you know if it works. Even though you've seen and tried similar things before.


I take it you voted, "Don't Care" then? :)

I voted, "Yes! Colors should be allowed" because I agree that it does brighten up the somewhat subdued grey/blue scheme, and I don't mind them. If it was removed, I wouldn't go screaming through the streets looting stores and burning cars :D. It's up to you guys.

I'm not sure if the test drive a car or trying on a pair of shoes analogies work, but my point was that I think one could have made the leap to imagining what it would have looked like here, as I've seen it on a slew of other forums, and it looks the same here as it does there. Doesn't it? I dunno, to me it does anyhow.

But you're right, you guys didn't start the poll. I suppose I'd rather see something to the effect of:

"iNET Interactive likes the colors, they stay" *thread closed*

or

"iNET Interactive agrees, the colors will be removed, we made a mistake" *thread closed*

or

Let 25-50 members vote on it (the typical amount before Rochen says, "See! Everyone agrees with it!" :D), and then base the decison to keep or remove it on that

-rather than the admins saying, "Yeah, we don't like the colors!"

If you two don't like the colors, get rid of them. then everyone is happy (except the people who want the colors, but screw 'em, they'll get over it, I know I will).

Originally posted by Chicken
I voted, "Yes! Colors should be allowed" because I agree that it does brighten up the somewhat subdued grey/blue scheme, and I don't mind them. If it was removed, I wouldn't go screaming through the streets looting stores and burning cars :D. It's up to you guys.

That's a shame. I haven't seen a good riot in a while and I think that all WHT decisions from here on out should be accompanied by lynchings and public floggings.

I voted "Yes! Colors should be allowed", because i do believe they brighten up the place. But i believe that guidlines on regulating signatures should be tightened.

Originally posted by Coach
That's a shame. I haven't seen a good riot in a while and I think that all WHT decisions from here on out should be accompanied by lynchings and public floggings.
I'll assume you don't mean that the moderators are to be the ones lynched and flogged ;) :D

Originally posted by Chicken
I'll assume you don't mean that the moderators are to be the ones lynched and flogged ;) :D


Well I guess since we can't be plucked, breaded, and fried :D

I voted yes, but some sigs are a tad hard on the eyes. I guess for those folks that don't like all them pretty colors :D you can always stop viewing sigs from your profile setup.

Originally posted by Chicken
. . . . I suppose I'd rather see something to the effect of:

"iNET Interactive likes the colors, they stay" *thread closed*

or

"iNET Interactive agrees, the colors will be removed, we made a mistake" *thread closed*. . . I suppose I'm a little more open.

err . . the *thread* is a little more open.

I, personally, don't like many of the colored signatures.

I, as a moderator, don't see colors leaving.

There are things, on a personal level, I'd have different.

But, what is better for the community, is better for the community. And a little color is probably better for the community. No matter how I feel about it personally.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
I suppose I'm a little more open.

err . . the *thread* is a little more open.

I, personally, don't like many of the colored signatures.

I, as a moderator, don't see colors leaving.

There are things, on a personal level, I'd have different.

But, what is better for the community, is better for the community. And a little color is probably better for the community. No matter how I feel about it personally.

Dennis, interestingly enough, the votes show another opinion. 60% "No". I actually found that odd.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Dennis, interestingly enough, the votes show another opinion. 60% "No". I actually found that odd.
Yes, with a massive 37 votes from 50,000+ members. You obviously have an overwhelming mandate right there!! :D

That's nearly meaningless. I hate to say it, but a lot of polls are run around here, and currently (at the time of this writing), there are 37 total votes. 37 people out of 51,938 registered members is *not* practical data that you can use for *any* purpose. It is, at best, a tiny sampling (used for what I honestly don't know), but that number could easily be swayed by the way the question was worded and a hundred other factors. I've seen polls where less than 100 people voted and someone proclaimed that *that* was evidence that the members agreed with something.

Also, if you are asking the members (only), and subtracted any Leaders, Guides, Liasons, etc., who voted, you'd be left with an obscenely miniscule number of members out of the total registered.

Originally posted by Chicken
Also, if you are asking the members (only), and subtracted any Leaders, Guides, Liasons, etc., who voted, you'd be left with an obscenely miniscule number of members out of the total registered.

Why should we be excluded from voting? We particpate in this community also.. We donate our time to make this forum what it is, and keep it under control...

It depends on the poll, but often there are polls which are obviously geared for the members, and others which it may not matter. IMHO, community issue polls should be limited to registered members, and not include the leaders, even though you all particpate in the community also. That's my opinion though, and I'd understand if others disagreed with that.

Side note: Somehow I missed that Aussie Bob commented on the 37 votes and posted esentially the same thing that I did. I have no idea if it took me that long to reply, but it wasn't there when I clicked the reply button originally.

I don't participate in many polls, just the ones that are of interest to me. Signatures are something we "nearly" all have to see. Members are free to turn them off in their control panel if they don't wish to see them, but the leaders and liaisons can't, (well they can, but it would be a pain to have a report regarding a signature and then have to turn them back on so you could attend to the report) so in this case, I feel we/they have every right to vote in this poll. I have voted the same way I would have if I was a regular member :)

Originally posted by Chicken
. . . Side note: Somehow I missed that Aussie Bob commented on the 37 votes and posted esentially the same thing that I did. I have no idea if it took me that long to reply, but it wasn't there when I clicked the reply button originally.
Obviously you're getting slower in your old age. ;)

I think that the number of posts in this poll is fairly representitive of the people who actually keep the forum going.
You can talk about 50,000+ members all you want but how many are there really?
Maybe there is a way to find out how many members have made a post in the last month, outside of the advertising forums, not including a single post looking for a new host.
Less than a hundred I'll bet.
Look at the MOTM voting. That is a monthly event known to all members and it regularly gets less then 100 votes.

Originally posted by blue27
You can talk about 50,000+ members all you want but how many are there really?.
I have just been looking at some stats.

21,755 (registered users) haven't posted since Jan 1 2003

How deep do the stats go Anon?
Does it tell you how many have not posted in the non advertising forums since Jan. 1

Originally posted by blue27
I think that the number of posts in this poll is fairly representitive of the people who actually keep the forum going.
You can talk about 50,000+ members all you want but how many are there really?
Maybe there is a way to find out how many members have made a post in the last month, outside of the advertising forums, not including a single post looking for a new host.
Less than a hundred I'll bet.
Look at the MOTM voting. That is a monthly event known to all members and it regularly gets less then 100 votes.
I'm not sure what you mean by, "posts in this poll" ? Votes? Posts in this thread? Either way, I disagree that 37 votes is, "fairly representitive of the people who actually keep the forum going." I don't know how many members have made a post in the last month, (outside of the advertising forums, not including a single post looking for a new host), though I would bet cash that it's not less than a hundred. If the figures are similar to when I was here, it will be couple-few thousand. It would be easy to figure out how many members have made a post in the last month, outside of the advertising forums, but I don't think it would be possible to subtract the posts of people looking for a new host.

As for why the monthly MOTM voting regularly gets less then 100 votes, it's probably because it's pointless to many, they aren't interested, have no reason to be, and thus don't bother to vote.

Side note, I missed the last one (though I often miss them), and although you were in the running for June, July, August, September, you won October's. Congrat's.... even if it was statisitically inevitable. When I won, there were 60 votes total. Mens about as much as MOTM in the first place.

At the time I made my post there were 49 votes.
When gallup does a pole they only pole a very, very small percentage of the population. They consider the opinions of 3000 people in California to be representitive of the entire state, plus or minus 1 percent.
So I do think this pole is a good representation of the WHT community.

Originally posted by blue27
When gallup does a pole they only pole a very, very small percentage of the population. They consider the opinions of 3000 people in California to be representitive of the entire state, plus or minus 1 percent.
So I do think this pole is a good representation of the WHT community.
You are aware that those polls are meaningless as well, eh? The opinions of 3000 people are 99.9% of the time not representitive of the entire state of in California. Just because someone does a poll, doesn't mean it isn't horribly flawed, nor does it mean that the question couldn't have been rephrased to produce a different result.

Although the question simply asks, "Should colors be allowed in signatures?" This is the post that went along with it...
Originally posted by Apoc
I'm not sure since when exactly colors in signatures are allowed, but they're annoying the hell out of me. There are a lot of people who use several bright colors in their signatures, which make browsing through a thread really annoying.

I don't think I'm the only one thinking about this this way, and I also don't see any need why these are allowed in the first place, infact I'm kinda surprised that this is still allowed.

I think it would be a good thing if it's all one color, you still could use bold or italic for example.

Regards, [/B]
If that post highlighted the good things about colors in signatures, pointed out only positive aspects, etc., and that person stated how they really liked them and how great they thought colors were, it is *entirely* posible that the results would have been reversed.

In general, who you ask and how you ask it can predetermine the results of nearly any poll (here or otherwise).

I would disagree on the fact that polls are not accurate. They have always been a good indicator in the past.
Wasn't Arnold leading in the polls when he got elected.

Originally posted by Chicken
In general, who you ask and how you ask it can predetermine the results of nearly any poll (here or otherwise).

I don't agree on that, I think everyone can vote whatever he wants, regardless of what my motivation is that I would like to see them removed. In my opinion, your own signature has way too bright colors, someone else (you, for example) won't always share that opinion with me.

However, I think the results speak for themself. 60% agrees with me, only 26% doesn't.

Are the mods going to draw a conclusion from this or is everything just going to stay the way it is at the moment?

Our latest discussion on signatures has been going on since the beginning of November and the discussion is still going strong.

I would disagree on the fact that polls are not accurate. They have always been a good indicator in the past.
Wasn't Arnold leading in the polls when he got elected.

Big difference between polls being accurate, and a poll being an indicator.

If you've taken a statistics class (in college), then you'll find that when a sample of the population is surveyed, the statistician can extrapolate and estimate data for the population at various confidence levels. But if the sample that was surveyed was biased in any way, this estimation would fall outside that confidence level and be rejected. In our case, we're only polling people that read this Announcements forum - so the population is only the people that read this particular forum. So it would be fair to say that 60% of the people that read the announcements forum are against colors, but it would not be fair to say that 60% of members on WHT are against colors, because that is not the population being sampled.

Originally posted by Akash
but it would not be fair to say that 60% of members on WHT are against colors, because that is not the population being sampled.

Did you read that Rochen ;) (sorry I just had too...)

Anyways, Chicken and Akash are dead-on. I'm trying to find a study I read some time ago, where participants took a questioneer with 50 questions on it. Well, two of the questions were the exact same, just wording differently. The two questions were litterally flipflopped in results, just on how the question was worded, nothing more.

Originally posted by blue27
. . . So I do think this pole is a good representation of the WHT community.
*looks around for a WHT Pole* :D

I'm not dancing around that pole. No sir!! :o

You know you want too, I'll sell the tickets :P

eBoundary and Aussie Bob have just given me a hellish vision of Bob straddling a metal pole like a siliconed dancer wearing nothing but a thong!

Thanks a lot.

You're more than welcome :P We've got to do something to give you nightmares :)

Originally posted by eBoundary
You're more than welcome :P We've got to do something to give you nightmares :)

Actually, I think I just had a daymare after reading that... and my eye won't stop twitching...

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
*looks around for a WHT Pole* :D

I'm not dancing around that pole. No sir!! :o

Unfortunately my poor spelling has ruined my day.
The thought of Aussie Bob and maybe even SWR dancing around a pole is more than I can tolerate.

Akash, from my experience, the people who are regular contributors to this forum are also people who tend to check out the announcements forum so I'll continue to stand by my idea that a poll like this represents the community.
It may not represent all 30,000 who have posted this year but it does represents the major contributors, and isn't that the whole idea?

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Yes, with a massive 37 votes from 50,000+ members. You obviously have an overwhelming mandate right there!! :D

Do you know anything about polling? Feel free to get wordy on your reply. :rolleyes:

WHT is a niche-oriented location. People coming here:
1) Are host or are interested in hosting research.
2) Apparently know what a forum is.

The question asked was "Color in Sigs?"

The choices were as neutral as can be.

Just like any poll, it is averages. Just a rough guess how it would turn out if everyone voted. As this continues, I am willing to bet the averages hold pretty close to the 59% it was at when I posted. Without polling, how else do you plan to get statistical results from a population? Mindreading?

Also, it is common sense polling is not the definitive answer. Who cares. Until you show me an easier way to get quick results, I guess polling is as good of method as there can be. Of course there will be errors. Of course some polls are rigged for predetermined results. This one seems about as neutral as I have seen. Anyone care to show me different?

"I don't care"

I can't believe the number of posts we can generate on such a topic as signatures....

:D :o ;)

Originally posted by Incognito
"I don't care"

I can't believe the number of posts we can generate on such a topic as signatures....

:D :o ;)

I can. Look at the CAT forums. :D

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I can. Look at the CAT forums. :D I know.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Do you know anything about polling? Feel free to get wordy on your reply. :rolleyes:
If you think 37 votes was enough for "the votes show another opinion", then that's ok with me. That opinion is certianly not a collective community opinion. It's just 37 people voted and 18 (?) of them reckoned color should be ommitted from sigs. I think there was 12 who said sigs should have color. Some folks said it didn't matter.

I'd just like to see a lot more votes, before drawing conclusions about the way the community feels. IMO, saying "the votes show another opinion" with 37 total votes, was a tad premature. The numbers could very well stay at their current percentages, given more votes. That's a possibility, but 37 votes is too early to be drawing any inferences.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
If you think 37 votes was enough for "the votes show another opinion", then that's ok with me. That opinion is certianly not a collective community opinion. It's just 37 people voted and 18 (?) of them reckoned color should be ommitted from sigs. I think there was 12 who said sigs should have color. Some folks said it didn't matter.

I'd just like to see a lot more votes, before drawing conclusions about the way the community feels. IMO, saying "the votes show another opinion" with 37 total votes, was a tad premature. The numbers could very well stay at their current percentages, given more votes. That's a possibility, but 37 votes is too early to be drawing any inferences.

Actually 55 votes in total. That may not be enough to represent the whole community, but I think it's enough to draw a conclusion. Ok, we may as well wait a little longer, till say 100-150 votes. I think such a number would be enough to represent this community actually.

Originally posted by Apoc
Actually 55 votes in total. That may not be enough to represent the whole community, but I think it's enough to draw a conclusion. Ok, we may as well wait a little longer, till say 100-150 votes. I think such a number would be enough to represent this community actually.
55 now, 37 back when I posted.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
55 now, 37 back when I posted.

Exactally. Still the same percentage. But lets wait.................

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Exactally. Still the same percentage. But lets wait.................
Originally posted by Aussie Bob
. . . The numbers could very well stay at their current percentages, given more votes. That's a possibility, but 37 votes is too early to be drawing any inferences.

Originally posted by blue27
I would disagree on the fact that polls are not accurate.
No one said that polls are not accurate. What was said was...
Originally posted by Chicken
who you ask and how you ask it can predetermine the results
You could make it less definitive and say...

Who you ask and how you ask it can affect the results.
Originally posted by Apoc
I don't agree on that, I think everyone can vote whatever he wants, regardless of what my motivation is that I would like to see them removed.

However, I think the results speak for themself. 60% agrees with me, only 26% doesn't.

Are the mods going to draw a conclusion from this or is everything just going to stay the way it is at the moment?
They can vote whichever way, however you polluted the poll by your first post (again)...
Originally posted by Apoc
I'm not sure since when exactly colors in signatures are allowed, but they're annoying the hell out of me. There are a lot of people who use several bright colors in their signatures, which make browsing through a thread really annoying.

I don't think I'm the only one thinking about this this way, and I also don't see any need why these are allowed in the first place, infact I'm kinda surprised that this is still allowed.

I think it would be a good thing if it's all one color, you still could use bold or italic for example.
Your poll reads like this:
Colors in signatures are annoying the hell out of me.
People who use several bright colors in their signatures make browsing through a thread really annoying.
I don't see any need why these are allowed in the first place.
I'm kinda surprised that this is still allowed.

POLL:
Should colors be allowed in signatures?
Yes! Colors should be allowed
I don't care
No! Colors shouldn't be allowed


Your post which conveys your distaste for colors in signature and highlights one negative reason, then objectively asks the question, "Should colors be allowed in signatures?" The results are biased, they speak to that, and there is no accurate conclusion that can be drawn from it. Beyond that, the top leaders of the forum commented how they too thought colors should not be allowed. If leaders lead, what do other members do?
Originally posted by Akash
In our case, we're only polling people that read this Announcements forum - so the population is only the people that read this particular forum. So it would be fair to say that 60% of the people that read the announcements forum are against colors, but it would not be fair to say that 60% of members on WHT are against colors, because that is not the population being sampled.
I agree with this and would like to add that the initial post is not how you conduct polls, unless you want to pollute the results. You simply ask the question, "Should colors be allowed in signatures?" - and either have both sides presented objectively and completely, or no side presented. A poll with no replies however would only tell you, "60% of the people that read the announcements forum and voted are against colors" -nothing more, nothing less. You can't extend the results into other areas (such as the membership at large), as that isn't who was polled.
Originally posted by JustinH
I'm trying to find a study I read some time ago, where participants took a questioneer with 50 questions on it. Well, two of the questions were the exact same, just wording differently. The two questions were litterally flipflopped in results, just on how the question was worded, nothing more.
We may not agree on Wal-Mart, however this isn't an opinion, it's a fact. The wording of the question (in this case the initial post), can directly affect the results. As I said before...
Originally posted by Chicken
If that post highlighted the good things about colors in signatures, pointed out only positive aspects, etc., and that person stated how they really liked them and how great they thought colors were, it is *entirely* possible that the results would have been reversed.

In general, who you ask and how you ask it can predetermine the results of nearly any poll (here or otherwise).
Originally posted by blue27
Akash, from my experience, the people who are regular contributors to this forum are also people who tend to check out the announcements forum so I'll continue to stand by my idea that a poll like this represents the community.
It may not represent all 30,000 who have posted this year but it does represents the major contributors, and isn't that the whole idea?
"The people who are regular contributors to this forum" may also be "people who tend to check out the announcements forum" -but you cannot definitively say what a "regular contributor" or "major contributor" is, nor if they voted in this poll. Is the thread starter (with <500 votes), a "regular contributor" or "major contributor"? Without examining who voted and defining the terms "regular contributor" or "major contributor" how can you state, "that a poll like this represents the community?"
Originally posted by UmBillyCord
The question asked was "Color in Sigs?"

The choices were as neutral as can be.
You are correct, both the question and the choices alone are as neutral as can be. If that was the only thing presented, then you would have gotten accurate results to find out how many people that read the announcements forum and voted are for or against colors in signatures. If enough people voted (and I don't believe 37 or 55 is enough -however exactly how many is enough is subjective), one could probably use those results to indicate/estimate how the total amount of members would vote.

The problem is, this was not how the poll was presented. It was presented with an accompanying initial post which, very likely, polluted the results.

Colors in signatures are annoying the hell out of me.
People who use several bright colors in their signatures make browsing through a thread really annoying.
I don't see any need why these are allowed in the first place.
I'm kinda surprised that this is still allowed.

POLL:
Should colors be allowed in signatures?
Yes! Colors should be allowed
I don't care
No! Colors shouldn't be allowed

The second and seventh posts were by the top leaders, also expressing their distaste:

Posted by SoftWareRevue:
I thought colors would brighten this place up and make it more attractive. I don't like them.
I thought I could get used to them. I can't.

Posted by Rochen
Another 'No' here :)

Again, if leaders lead, what do members do?
Originally posted by UmBillyCord
As this continues, I am willing to bet the averages hold pretty close to the 59% it was at when I posted.
And it may, but even if the tides should turn, and the votes shift the other way to 59% for Yes! Colors should be allowed -that still doesn't change the fact that the poll is horribly flawed and useless. You could not deduce that the "regular" or "major contributors" or the membership at large, feels one way or another. The post you are reading right now (this one) may affect the outcome.
Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Without polling, how else do you plan to get statistical results from a population? Mindreading?
It is not "polling" that is the issue. One could, "get statistical results from a population." However if the poll is so flawed, and presented in a biased manner, you've killed any chance of the results being objective and accurate, as in this case.

As I said before, the same poll with a different initial post could have flipped these results upside down:

Colors in signatures are annoying the hell out of me.
People who use several bright colors in their signatures make browsing through a thread really annoying.
I don't see any need why these are allowed in the first place.
I'm kinda surprised that this is still allowed.

The second and seventh posts were by the top leaders, also expressing their distaste:

Posted by SoftWareRevue:
I thought colors would brighten this place up and make it more attractive. I don't like them.
I thought I could get used to them. I can't.

Posted by Rochen
Another 'No' here :)


I think the colors in signatures look great.
People who use several bright colors in their signatures make browsing through a thread more enjoyable.
They should have always been allowed.
I hope they stay.

The second and seventh posts were by the top leaders, also expressing their satisfaction:

Posted by SoftWareRevue:
I thought colors would brighten this place up and make it more attractive. It did.
I've gotten used to them.

Posted by Rochen
Another 'Yes' here :)
POLL:
Should colors be allowed in signatures?
Yes! Colors should be allowed
I don't care
No! Colors shouldn't be allowed


You think these two polls (same wording of the actual poll), would have produced the same results? I can assure you, that is not the case. Maybe ther results would have been flopped, but regardless, both polls would be useless if the goal was to objectively poll the membership at large on the issue.

Chicken, you assume people read long-winded post like yours before they vote. :D

It's long winded because I'm attempting to educate people on what is valid and what is not valid. Obviously people prefer short one sentence replies, but unfortunately, the dynamics of accurate polling do not fit into one sentence.

I suppose if you want to skip all that, explain this (regarding Verisign's Sitefinder service)...

http://www.verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr_20031003.html

"The service has been well received by millions of Internet users who appreciate getting navigation tools as opposed to the 'dead end' of an error message," added Lewis.
Odd statement to make when one considers...
http://www.eweek.com/poll_archive/0,3044,p=1249&bn=1,00.asp

What do you think about VeriSign's SiteFinder?

It's convenient - 7.08%
It's a nuisance - 56.36%
It's causing me serious network problems - 36.56%

Originally posted by Apoc
. . . However, I think the results speak for themself. 60% agrees with me, only 26% doesn't.
It's actually 52% to 30% now :D so your numbers are slipping. Perhaps we're seeing a trend here? ;)
. . . Are the mods going to draw a conclusion from this or is everything just going to stay the way it is at the moment?
It wasn't a poll started by the mods. I'm sure they're interested in seeing the results. I'd like to see color remain, but limited to 1 color + black + 1 smiley etc.

Oh, if the colored sigs offend you, you can always stop viewing sigs from your "Profile" settings. :)

Originally posted by Chicken
It's long winded because I'm attempting to educate people on what is valid and what is not valid. Obviously people prefer short one sentence replies, but unfortunately, the dynamics of accurate polling do not fit into one sentence . . .
That last post of yours was amazing. It's obvious you put a lot of thought and effort into it. When I get a spare hour, I'll finish reading it! :D

;)

I think Chicken should win an award for that one :D.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Oh, if the colored sigs offend you, you can always stop viewing sigs from your "Profile" settings. :)
Some can ;)

Any Aussies remember the referendum a few years back when the majority of Australians clearly wanted to become a republic, but the way the poll was worded, left it wide open to interpretation and it had to swing the other way because of the wording.

Originally posted by anon-e-mouse
. . . Any Aussies remember the referendum a few years back when the majority of Australians clearly wanted to become a republic, but the way the poll was worded, left it wide open to interpretation and it had to swing the other way because of the wording.
That's because they went about it all wrong. They needed to first establish that a republic was wanted, and then after that, choose which republic model was to be used. They tried to do both in the 1 hit [falling into Howard's genuis trap] and hence lost because the model the republican camp proposed, was not the prefered choice of Aussies.

Yes, the majority wanted to become a republic. It was just the republic model [Parliment choosing the President, rather than the people choosing the President] that clinched defeat from the jaws of victory. :D

But we digress . . . . :blush:

Originally posted by Aussie Bob

It's actually 52% to 30% now :D so your numbers are slipping. Perhaps we're seeing a trend here? ;)

It wasn't a poll started by the mods. I'm sure they're interested in seeing the results. I'd like to see color remain, but limited to 1 color + black + 1 smiley etc.

Oh, if the colored sigs offend you, you can always stop viewing sigs from your "Profile" settings. :) [/B]

Heh there are still nearly twice as much votes against colors in signatures though, and it's a 22% difference, which is quite a lot actually.

I also don't think it should matter whether a loyal member starts the poll, or a moderator.

Sigs don't offend me, they just annoy me. Or well, the colors do. I don't think there's any need for them at all..

Originally posted by Chicken
Your post which conveys your distaste for colors in signature and highlights one negative reason, then objectively asks the question, "Should colors be allowed in signatures?" The results are biased, they speak to that, and there is no accurate conclusion that can be drawn from it. Beyond that, the top leaders of the forum commented how they too thought colors should not be allowed. If leaders lead, what do other members do?

I agree with this and would like to add that the initial post is not how you conduct polls, unless you want to pollute the results. You simply ask the question, "Should colors be allowed in signatures?" - and either have both sides presented objectively and completely, or no side presented. A poll with no replies however would only tell you, "60% of the people that read the announcements forum and voted are against colors" -nothing more, nothing less. You can't extend the results into other areas (such as the membership at large), as that isn't who was polled.



You keep on saying me that you can assure everyone that the first post influences the voting behaviour of the voters. I'm wondering how you can 'assure this'. Have you studied voting behaviour? I don't think so. And if you did: please just say so. Other than that, there's just no way you can assure anyone how people vote.

In my opinion the first vote does not reflect results of a poll AT ALL. People may read it, but they will also read other posts if they do, and they also have their own opinion.

The way the question is asked may indeed influence voting behaviour, but the question itself "Do you think colors should be allowed in signatures" is as neutral as it gets.

Originally posted by Apoc
Have you studied voting behaviour? I don't think so. And if you did: please just say so.
I have.
In my opinion the first vote does not reflect results of a poll AT ALL.
You're incorrect.
The way the question is asked may indeed influence voting behaviour, but the question itself "Do you think colors should be allowed in signatures" is as neutral as it gets.
Agreed, and if it was a poll put on the side bar of the main index page of the forum in a littel box, you could probably use those results, even if a limited amount of people voted (such as 55 of 50,000+ registered members) as an indicator of how the rest of the members may vote. The poll itself was fine, but the execution of the poll caused the results to be invalid.

You cannot present a one sided view of something, ask a question, and expect/assume that the results are objective and valid. It simply doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by Chicken
I have.


I see. Where have you studied that if I may ask? I have been studying marketing on university for 6 years myself, can't say I know nothing about it.


Originally posted by Chicken
You're incorrect.


If that's so, at least give some arguments why that may be.

Originally posted by Chicken
Agreed, and if it was a poll put on the side bar of the main index page of the forum in a littel box, you could probably use those results, even if a limited amount of people voted (such as 55 of 50,000+ registered members) as an indicator of how the rest of the members may vote. The poll itself was fine, but the execution of the poll caused the results to be invalid.

You cannot present a one sided view of something, ask a question, and expect/assume that the results are objective and valid. It simply doesn't work that way.


You keep on saying things like 'it simply doesn't work that way'. If you try to convince someone you should use valid arguments, not statements like that.

Also you say the execution of the poll caused the results to be invalid, but you don't give any reason why that may be either.

If the number of votes is high enough, it CAN represent the community, and there's nothing wrong with the execution of this poll. I'd like to get some reasons of you why this poll is inaccurate according to you.

Also note that I never said that it currently can represent the community, infact I suggested we wait a while until 150+ people voted. I think that that's a fair amount of votes.

Originally posted by Chicken
It's long winded because I'm attempting to educate people on what is valid and what is not valid. Obviously people prefer short one sentence replies, but unfortunately, the dynamics of accurate polling do not fit into one sentence.


Hm kind of remarkable you said that. You were doing that in your last post yourself..

Originally posted by Chicken
It's long winded because I'm attempting to educate people on what is valid and what is not valid. Obviously people prefer short one sentence replies, but unfortunately, the dynamics of accurate polling do not fit into one sentence.


You have seen enough of my post to know if I don't add a smilie, then I am serious about the comment. When I use a :D , which is seldom, it means the post was a joke. I certainly understand why you posted it and understand it.

On a side note, maybe we should start a poll and say "How many vote first, then read replies?" That is one way to see voting trends here. I myself vote, then read.

I actually like reading your post because they are well done, they are not just long-winded, devil's advocate BS followed by smilies which some do.

31.75% up from 30%. We're seeing a upward trend here!!! :nuts:

Originally posted by Apoc
I see. Where have you studied that if I may ask? I have been studying marketing on university for 6 years myself, can't say I know nothing about it.
Where have I studied? Well, I'm not sure I'd really like to list that, but for a few years at a small college in New Hampshire, a year at a university in Long Beach, a couple years in Connecticut at a college, some classes at UCLA, a few years at another university in California (this is current, finishing up Master's degree), and in the future, I don't know, I'd like to study in Korea actually, but if not maybe UCLA, or I really don't know.

Mind you that statistics isn't something I pursued, but I've taken marketing classes, and studied law, graphic design, photography, art history, U.S. history, fine arts, but have settled into education for now.

It sounds like you have an extensive background in marketing (and know much about it), which is all well and good, but when you take a statistics class, you let us know. Marketing isn't the same, though one may use polls and statistics to market products and services. You don't seem like you know anything about the subject (and I'm not saying that to be mean, I don't anything about many things). I think Akash probably knows a bit about statistics, or at least has an interest in it (the feeling I get from his post anyway).
If that's so, at least give some arguments why that may be.

<snip>

Also you say the execution of the poll caused the results to be invalid, but you don't give any reason why that may be either.

<snip>

I'd like to get some reasons of you why this poll is inaccurate according to you.[/B]
You're kidding right? Have you READ any of the posts? I think I (rather long-windedly) gave you arguments, reasons, etc. I am baffled as why you'd post the above quoted lines, but to b honest, my only point was that this thread is useless, and I've stated why. From here I don't really care if anyone disagrees and thinks this poll is (in any way) useful. I also (as I said), don't care if signatures have color or not (the point), but enjoy the added splashes of color here and there and do not feel it detracts any more than some of the black signatures.

Didn't want to enter the conversation, but couldn't resist adding something that I know the answer to. Apoc, I studied both marketing and business research (where you specifically study surveying, polling and researching) and I can assure you that your poll was incorrectly presented and results cannot be taken into account when making a decision. And no, I'm too lazy and too annoyed to go into details now because I just had a 60-page paper done on the subject.

Too bad. 6 years of marketing and they told you all the wrong things. Btw, I believe there is no science or subject called "voting behavior".

Be cool. ;)

Originally posted by Artashes
Didn't want to enter the conversation, but couldn't resist adding something that I know the answer to. Apoc, I studied both marketing and business research (where you specifically study surveying, polling and researching) and I can assure you that your poll was incorrectly presented and results cannot be taken into account when making a decision. And no, I'm too lazy and too annoyed to go into details now because I just had a 60-page paper done on the subject.

Too bad. 6 years of marketing and they told you all the wrong things. Btw, I believe there is no science or subject called "voting behavior".

Be cool. ;)

Why is that these discussions always turn into who is more educated and that their education is more right then the next guys?


Regarding your comment on "there is no science or subject called "voting behavior"." Do search on Google. You will be surprised what there is.

I think the mods should have a tutorial on how to close a thread... and seems this thread would work as the perfect example.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Regarding your comment on "there is no science or subject called "voting behavior"." Do search on Google. You will be surprised what there is.
In this case voting behavior would refer to political science, not marketing science.

I don't care. But I wish it said " I don't give a flying ... because I really don't.

Originally posted by Artashes
In this case voting behavior would refer to political science, not marketing science.

Correct. But your comment was this:

"there is no science or subject called "voting behavior"."

Well, there is. My post wasn't to start a debate on whether political science is real science or anything else. it was just to point out "voting behavior" exist and since the 2000 US elections, it certainly has become a big deal. ;)