DU (and yours truly) mentioned in Raw Story piece about that unreliable NPR poll about Fox

[DFW]

Story here: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/conservatives-win-npr-poll-wh-fox-war/

"A front paged Free Republic post on Thursday cried out,

'Freep this poll' "

and

"At Democratic Underground, liberals did their best to 'Freep' it the other way around."

I object to calling what I wrote a "complaint." It was just an observation on my part. "Complaint" would meant
that I cared or took their skewable poll seriously, and NO poll that permits unlimited votes from individuals
can be taken seriously.

Even so, we got some serious play. It's not like "the whole world's watching," but we apparently aren't posting
in a vacuum, either. Be prepared for more trolls, people.

*on edit: newtothegame got some mention as well

[1]

1. so... when we overwhelm a poll its all good. when they do its bad?

have i got that right?

i never know how to react when several times a day i am asked to "du" a poll on threads here...

[DFW]

2. No, you don't have it right

ANY poll that allows more than one vote per person is not a true poll. It's an electronic ballot-stuffing
exercise that is as reflective of true sentiment as much as Saddam's getting 99.85% of the vote in an Iraqi
election was a reflection of Iraqi public sentiment. If a poll only allows you to vote once, and you feel
strongly about the subject, then vote if you feel so inclined. If a "poll" allows anyone with the time on
their hands to vote as often as they like, then it's about as reliable as a statistic cited on a Rush Limbaugh
broadcast, and should be treated with just about the same amount of respect.

[1]

3. yeah, i get that. but is any internet poll a true poll?

again... when we overwhelm a poll its all good. when they do its bad?

[DFW]

5. I doubt that any internet poll is a true poll

People who support one of the possible "answers" have the capacity to post about it on boards where the majority shares
their view, and, depending on who sees the post, and how many on that site want to bother, a huge rush of like-minded
people can place their votes.

"Overwhelming" a poll can't be designated as "good" or "bad" as that's in the eye of the beholder. The results reported
in Ohio in 2004 by Diebold and ESS were good if you were a Republican, bad if you weren't. But, as with Ohio 2004, any
poll that doesn't accurately reflect "one man (no gender discrimination intended or implied), one vote" should not be
taken seriously.

I.e. good or bad is subjective, but a poll that can be overwhelmed artificially is never accurate, and taking it as such
is a false premise. The extremist right, as I understand it, is crowing about the "result" of this "poll," but as it
allowed unlimited multiple voting, the result is not to be taken seriously, and that is a standpoint I take on ANY poll
that permits unlimited multiple voting, including, yes, polls that go "our" way as well.

[angstlessk]

7. to DU a poll is to vote, not to freep the poll...sorry not equal just like

all the rest of the crap I hear..well, Democrats do it...no, we are nearly 150,000 strong..to DU a poll is to go vote, which I sometimes do, and let it at that. I do not clear cookies, and go back and repeat ad nauseatum.

[Mimosa]

4. If I can hit a poll 6 or 10 times...

It's totally unbelievable.

Those calls to 'DU' a poll seem silly to me. Any polls which are so easily manipulated can't be believed at all. I wonder why CNN and other news orgs even bother?

[DFW]

6. I think it gives them stories to "report" on when real news is slow.

I can't imagine why they'd bother otherwise. A poll that is designed for inaccuracy is hardly newsworthy.