Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[James Ockenden]

i would like a data feed of all the BBC Have Your Say responses which
have a) been most recommended and b) feature a large amount of capital
letters (eg BOYCOTT CHINA).  That way, you could launch a very low
cost newspaper to rival the Daily Express/Mail without any real
journalism.
And thank-you newsbiscuit.com for "Pisswizard". Great name for a cat or a dog.


On 28/09/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 28/09/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's possibly a bit of a sledgehammer / nut scenario for a poll like
> > "What should we call the Tikkabilla ("Play School" for you other
> > oldies...) hamster?".
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Rich.
>
>
> You tell that to Socks and Cookie!
>
> I can't see how you can look for trends in the data and come up with a
> confidence level for a vote without all the data.
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/28/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > > On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer
> on
> > > Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite
> > > strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when
> the
> > > correct reaction is "You did *what*?" - most of those views are probably
> > > more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-)
> > >
> > > I guess one reason you might actually want to release a version of the
> > > original data is that it could be put out to external scrutiny, that is
> to
> > > say *our* scrutiny.  Perhaps it might be possible to detect the problems
> > > with each poll and potentially correct for them.For example:
> > >
> > > - if the referring page is listed, any links from other sites to the
> vote
> > > could be detected;
> > > - some form of IP-address-to-region (with a confidence-level perhaps) to
> > > detect location problems;
> > > - matching against botnet lists;
> > > - hashed reference to the bbc.co.uk login name;
> > > - hashed version of the IP address;
> > > - date and time of the vote;
> > > - hashed version of the bbc.co.uk tracking cookie; and
> > > - the vote data
> > >
> > > What you could possibly get back is a confidence level (as a percentage)
> as
> > > to the reliablity of the result...
> > -
> > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
> visit
> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
> list archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> www.ukfree.tv
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Brian Butterworth]

On 28/09/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's possibly a bit of a sledgehammer / nut scenario for a poll like
> "What should we call the Tikkabilla ("Play School" for you other
> oldies...) hamster?".
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich.


You tell that to Socks and Cookie!

I can't see how you can look for trends in the data and come up with a
confidence level for a vote without all the data.



On 9/28/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin,
> >
> > On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer
> on
> > Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite
> > strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when
> the
> > correct reaction is "You did *what*?" - most of those views are probably
> > more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-)
> >
> > I guess one reason you might actually want to release a version of the
> > original data is that it could be put out to external scrutiny, that is
> to
> > say *our* scrutiny.  Perhaps it might be possible to detect the problems
> > with each poll and potentially correct for them.For example:
> >
> > - if the referring page is listed, any links from other sites to the
> vote
> > could be detected;
> > - some form of IP-address-to-region (with a confidence-level perhaps) to
> > detect location problems;
> > - matching against botnet lists;
> > - hashed reference to the bbc.co.uk login name;
> > - hashed version of the IP address;
> > - date and time of the vote;
> > - hashed version of the bbc.co.uk tracking cookie; and
> > - the vote data
> >
> > What you could possibly get back is a confidence level (as a percentage)
> as
> > to the reliablity of the result...
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please
> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
> Unofficial
> list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>



-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Richard Lockwood]

That's possibly a bit of a sledgehammer / nut scenario for a poll like
"What should we call the Tikkabilla ("Play School" for you other
oldies...) hamster?".

:-)

Cheers,

Rich.

On 9/28/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer on
> Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite
> strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when the
> correct reaction is "You did *what*?" - most of those views are probably
> more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-)
>
> I guess one reason you might actually want to release a version of the
> original data is that it could be put out to external scrutiny, that is to
> say *our* scrutiny.  Perhaps it might be possible to detect the problems
> with each poll and potentially correct for them.For example:
>
> - if the referring page is listed, any links from other sites to the vote
> could be detected;
> - some form of IP-address-to-region (with a confidence-level perhaps) to
> detect location problems;
> - matching against botnet lists;
> - hashed reference to the bbc.co.uk login name;
> - hashed version of the IP address;
> - date and time of the vote;
> - hashed version of the bbc.co.uk tracking cookie; and
> - the vote data
>
> What you could possibly get back is a confidence level (as a percentage) as
> to the reliablity of the result...
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Brian Butterworth]

Martin,

On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer on
> Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite
> strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when the
> correct reaction is "You did *what*?" - most of those views are probably
> more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-)
>

I guess one reason you might actually want to release a version of the
original data is that it could be put out to external scrutiny, that is to
say *our* scrutiny.  Perhaps it might be possible to detect the problems
with each poll and potentially correct for them.For example:

- if the referring page is listed, any links from other sites to the vote
could be detected;
- some form of IP-address-to-region (with a confidence-level perhaps) to
detect location problems;
- matching against botnet lists;
- hashed reference to the bbc.co.uk login name;
- hashed version of the IP address;
- date and time of the vote;
- hashed version of the bbc.co.uk tracking cookie; and
- the vote data

What you could possibly get back is a confidence level (as a percentage) as
to the reliablity of the result...


> martin
>
>
>
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth
> *Sent:* 26 September 2007 17:15
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas
>
>
>  Martin,
>
> Did you read this?
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2175214,00.html
>
> Comment
> --
>  If you think the nation decides, think again
>
> Via phone-in, vote and blog, a vocal minority appears to be speaking for
> the silent majority
>
> *Carol Sarler
> Sunday September 23, 2007
> The Observer <http://www.observer.co.uk/>*
>
> Pity the poor BBC. No, come on: you really must when, to top all its
> recent troubles, jobs are threatened over no greater or lesser a matter than
> the naming of Blue Peter's bloody cat. The story so far goes that the
> producers asked the audience to pick a name for the critter, but when the
> votes were totted up, the winner - rumoured to have been either 'Pussy' or,
> apparently equally dodgy in street slang, 'Cookie' - was at first deemed
> inappropriate, so they fibbed and declared victory for 'Socks'. Heaps of
> shame, tons of opprobrium, inquisition to follow.
>
> I do not blame the BBC for the fib, well-intended as it was to deflect
> playground cackles. Nor do I think its fib was the greatest mendacity
> involved: six-year-olds do not call their cats Pussy or Cookie, neither do
> they have sufficient grasp of double entendre to do it for sport. Good money
> says the votes were cast not by children at all, but by the kind of people -
> indeed, probably the exact same people - who enjoy the unparalleled hilarity
> of calling themselves Jedi on a census form.
>
> But that is why I do blame the BBC for offering the vote in the first
> place, be it on Blue Peter, on Strictly Come Dancing or on any of the rash
> of programming stunts that permit the bold declaration: 'You, the nation,
> decides!' It sounds fearfully modern and embraces buzzwords like
> 'interactive' and 'inclusive'; in fact, all it is doing is adding to the
> already alarming degree of power held by meaningless, self-selected samples.
>
>
> The communications media have always been especially susceptible to these
> groups; broadcasters refer to switchboards being 'jammed with complaints'
> that actually number perhaps 80 out of the 10 million who watched a show.
> The 80 will have been agitated by a predictable pushing of buttons -
> cussing, for instance - that matters greatly to them, but little to the
> millions. By the same token, the Disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells might muster
> only a dozen letters to the editor on a single subject but, on a national
> newspaper, that is usually enough to guarantee publication of at least one.
> So be it; t'was ever thus.
>
> These days, however, in what some like to believe is democratisation ably
> assisted by technology, minority viewpoints are becoming jolly noisy. The
> advent of phone-in radio has expanded to fill entire networks 24 hours a
> day, as small numbers of citizens snuggle up together, warmed by the
> illusion that because their views are shared they are widely shared.
>
> Email has allowed for a massive growth in pyramid protest: if somebody is
> thought to have committed insult, one person emails 10 who each email 10
> more, passing on a cut-and-paste letter to the offending person or
&g

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Brian Butterworth]

On 27/09/2007, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26/09/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Remember that ALL the voting where you are asked to pay for the call or
> > text are simply revenue collection systems, not statistically valid ones.
> > The "adjudicators" (on Big Brother for example) simple verify that the
> > number of calls have been made, not the meaning of the votes.  As far as I
> > know the only systems that the BBC uses on a regular basis that are
> > statistically valid is the popular music chart and the BARB figures.
> >
>
> That was my point, you could see how statistaclilly *invalid* they were.
> Then correct accordingly using things like GeoIP and ISP data.
> And since when are the popcharts valid, even if they're not rigged,
> they're widely believed to be making them meaningless for most uses.
>

For a start they are constructed from a considerable amount of "real" data
from EPOS systems and other sales systems that represent real financial
transactions.  Then any dubious data is removed and then the results
weighted so as to represent the entire market.  This makes them much more
reliable than any "online vote".



>
>
> >  There is no reason why the BBC could not use a table where random
> > values are assigned to each IP address as they are encountered - as long as
> > a reverse look up was not published
> >
> >
>
> That's a much better idea than actual IP aaddress, for the media anyway if
> not for us.
>
> Vijay.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[vijay chopra]

On 26/09/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Remember that ALL the voting where you are asked to pay for the call or
> text are simply revenue collection systems, not statistically valid ones.
> The "adjudicators" (on Big Brother for example) simple verify that the
> number of calls have been made, not the meaning of the votes.  As far as I
> know the only systems that the BBC uses on a regular basis that are
> statistically valid is the popular music chart and the BARB figures.
>

That was my point, you could see how statistaclilly *invalid* they were.
Then correct accordingly using things like GeoIP and ISP data.
And since when are the popcharts valid, even if they're not rigged, they're
widely believed to be making them meaningless for most uses.



>  There is no reason why the BBC could not use a table where random values
> are assigned to each IP address as they are encountered - as long as a
> reverse look up was not published
>
>

That's a much better idea than actual IP aaddress, for the media anyway if
not for us.

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Martin Belam]

>> I was in a class of four people in the sixth form that did a
Statistics A-Level
 
There's a statistics joke in there somewhere but it is too early for me.
 
Just to be clear here, the BBC has strong editorial guidelines that
online votes are to be effectively taken with a pinch of salt, and not
used with editorial prominence in other media i.e. you can't on the News
say "And 79% of people prefered crisps to chocolate in the results of
our online poll". They are always meant to be called 'votes' rather than
'polls' as well, as polls implies some sort of scientific methodology,
rather than a self-selecting bunch of web users. This doesn't, of
course, stop producers getting it wrong from time to time
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/onguide/interacting/
onlinevoting.shtml
 
 
 
And I don't think Vijay is being too paranoid about "BBC releases
personal data!" scare stories cropping up either - look at the fuss made
over the release of the AOL search log data that wasn't properly made
anonymous
 
m



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 26 September 2007 22:58
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas


My apologies...  I was in a class of four people in the sixth form that
did a Statistics A-Level


On 26/09/2007, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 



On 26/09/2007, Christopher Woods < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: 

Leaving the last digit from the last octet out would be
fine, though? Then you could group by IP addresses for purposes like
fraud checking and suchlike. I'm sure the BBC sites always say that
standard information such as browser and IP address will be collected
whenever you submit information to the server, so that's a fairly
standard get-out clause. 


That's actually a really good idea, and to add to my previous
email, it would certainly be intresting to see what topics inspire the
most vote fraud. Having Geographic and ISP info aswell would be good.
Are Northerners or Southerners more honest online? NTL customers or BT
customers etc. 

 
What utter tosh.  I'm sorry, but aside from the fact that you cannot
determine anything at all from an IP address, because of NAT and
corporate gateways and proxy servers, firewalls and so forth, it misses
out the principles of: 
 
- Psephology - IP addresses might not be pebbles, but you need to
understand the actual system you are considering and not make
generalisations about questions not yet even asked.
 
- Statistical weighting.  Unless you do a "universal poll", you should
weight the incoming votes you get so that they represent the population
as a whole.  So, if you ask people to vote, and 25% of the voters are
men, you need to weight the male votes up so they match the 50% in the
population as a whole and "unweight" the female votes from 75% to 50%. 
 
- Secret ballots.  The whole point of a "secret ballot" is that you do
not know the votes of other people and cannot be influenced by votes
already cast.  This is not the case with most web, radio and telly
voting where you are being encouraged to part with money, not provide a
statistically correct outcome. 
 
Remember that ALL the voting where you are asked to pay for the call or
text are simply revenue collection systems, not statistically valid
ones.  The "adjudicators" (on Big Brother for example) simple verify
that the number of calls have been made, not the meaning of the votes.
As far as I know the only systems that the BBC uses on a regular basis
that are statistically valid is the popular music chart and the BARB
figures. 
 
 




There's bugger all you can really do with an IP address,
even a complete one, unless you're a malicious fellow with a botnet
behind you. 


I know that, you know that and everyone on this list knows that,
but it doesn't make as good a headline in the daily mail as "BBC giving
out information about your computers" or "BBC helps spammers" then going
on to detail all the evil things that can be done with a botnet... 
Or am I being too cynical?

 
There is no reason why the BBC could not use a table where random values
are assigned to each IP address as they are encountered - as long as a
reverse look up was not published
 
 


Vijay.





-- 


Brian Butterworth 
www.ukfree.tv 

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Brian Butterworth]

My apologies...  I was in a class of four people in the sixth form that did
a Statistics A-Level

On 26/09/2007, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26/09/2007, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  Leaving the last digit from the last octet out would be fine, though?
> > Then you could group by IP addresses for purposes like fraud checking and
> > suchlike. I'm sure the BBC sites always say that standard information such
> > as browser and IP address will be collected whenever you submit information
> > to the server, so that's a fairly standard get-out clause.
> >
>
> That's actually a really good idea, and to add to my previous email, it
> would certainly be intresting to see what topics inspire the most vote
> fraud. Having Geographic and ISP info aswell would be good. Are Northerners
> or Southerners more honest online? NTL customers or BT customers etc.
>

What utter tosh.  I'm sorry, but aside from the fact that you cannot
determine anything at all from an IP address, because of NAT and corporate
gateways and proxy servers, firewalls and so forth, it misses out the
principles of:

- Psephology - IP addresses might not be pebbles, but you need to understand
the actual system you are considering and not make generalisations about
questions not yet even asked.

- Statistical weighting.  Unless you do a "universal poll", you should
weight the incoming votes you get so that they represent the population as a
whole.  So, if you ask people to vote, and 25% of the voters are men, you
need to weight the male votes up so they match the 50% in the population as
a whole and "unweight" the female votes from 75% to 50%.

- Secret ballots.  The whole point of a "secret ballot" is that you do not
know the votes of other people and cannot be influenced by votes already
cast.  This is not the case with most web, radio and telly voting where you
are being encouraged to part with money, not provide a statistically correct
outcome.

Remember that ALL the voting where you are asked to pay for the call or text
are simply revenue collection systems, not statistically valid ones.  The
"adjudicators" (on Big Brother for example) simple verify that the number of
calls have been made, not the meaning of the votes.  As far as I know the
only systems that the BBC uses on a regular basis that are statistically
valid is the popular music chart and the BARB figures.



  There's bugger all you can really do with an IP address, even a complete
> > one, unless you're a malicious fellow with a botnet behind you.
> >
>
> I know that, you know that and everyone on this list knows that, but it
> doesn't make as good a headline in the daily mail as "BBC giving out
> information about your computers" or "BBC helps spammers" then going on to
> detail all the evil things that can be done with a botnet...
> Or am I being too cynical?


There is no reason why the BBC could not use a table where random values are
assigned to each IP address as they are encountered - as long as a reverse
look up was not published



Vijay.
>



-- 


Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Brian Butterworth]

Or, to put it another BBC [1986] way...


Humphrey Applebey was most interested in the party opinion poll, which I had
seen as an insuperable obstacle to changing the Prime Minister's mind.



His solution was simple: have another opinion poll done, one that would show
that the voters were *against* bringing back National Services.



I was somewhat *naïf* in those days.  I did not understand how the voters
could be both for it and against it.  Dear old Humphreys showed me how it's
done.



The secret is that when the Man In The Street is approached by a nice
attractive young lady with a clipboard he is asked a *series* of questions.
Naturally The Man In The Street wants to make a good impression and doesn't
want to make a fool of himself. So the market researcher asks questions
designed to elicit *consistent* answers.



Humphrey demonstrated the system on me.  'Mr Woolley, are you worried about
the rise in crime among teenagers?'



'Yes,' I said.



'Do you think that is a lack of discipline and vigorous training in our
Comprehensive Schools?'



'Yes.'



'Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their
lives?'



'Yes.'



'Do they respond to a challenge?'



'Yes.'



'Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?'



'Yes.'



Well, naturally I said yes.  One could hardly have said anything else
without looking inconsistent. Then what happens is that the Opinion Poll
publishes only the last question and answer.



Of course, the reputable polls didn't conduct themselves like that.  But
there' weren't too many of those.  Humphrey suggested that we commission a
new survey, not for the Party but for the Ministry of Defence.  We did so.  He
invented the questions there and then:



'Mr Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?'



'Yes,' I said, quite honestly.



'Are you unhappy about the growth in armaments?'



'Yes.'



'Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them
to kill?'



'Yes.'



'Do you think it wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?'



'Yes.'



'Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?'



I'd said 'Yes' before I'd even realised it, d'you see?



Humphrey was crowing with delight, 'You see, Bernard,' he said to me,
'you're the perfect Balanced Sample'.







On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer on
> Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite
> strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when the
> correct reaction is "You did *what*?" - most of those views are probably
> more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-)
>
> martin
>
>
>
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth
> *Sent:* 26 September 2007 17:15
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas
>
>
>  Martin,
>
> Did you read this?
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2175214,00.html
>
> Comment
> --
>  If you think the nation decides, think again
>
> Via phone-in, vote and blog, a vocal minority appears to be speaking for
> the silent majority
>
> *Carol Sarler
> Sunday September 23, 2007
> The Observer <http://www.observer.co.uk/>*
>
> Pity the poor BBC. No, come on: you really must when, to top all its
> recent troubles, jobs are threatened over no greater or lesser a matter than
> the naming of Blue Peter's bloody cat. The story so far goes that the
> producers asked the audience to pick a name for the critter, but when the
> votes were totted up, the winner - rumoured to have been either 'Pussy' or,
> apparently equally dodgy in street slang, 'Cookie' - was at first deemed
> inappropriate, so they fibbed and declared victory for 'Socks'. Heaps of
> shame, tons of opprobrium, inquisition to follow.
>
> I do not blame the BBC for the fib, well-intended as it was to deflect
> playground cackles. Nor do I think its fib was the greatest mendacity
> involved: six-year-olds do not call their cats Pussy or Cookie, neither do
> they have sufficient grasp of double entendre to do it for sport. Good money
> says the votes were cast not by children at all, but by the kind of people -
> indeed, probably the exact same people - who enjoy the unparalleled hilarity
> of calling themselves Jedi on a census form.
>
> But that is why

RE: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Gordon Joly]

At 17:40 +0100 26/9/07, Martin Belam wrote:
No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior 
Producer on Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I 
have some quite strong opinions about when it is right to run an 
online vote and when the correct reaction is "You did *what*?" - 
most of those views are probably more suited to the pub than this 
mailing list ;-)


martin







My biggest beef has always been that the BBC show the results of 
polling long before the voting has stopped!


Gordo




--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]///
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[vijay chopra]

On 26/09/2007, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Leaving the last digit from the last octet out would be fine, though?
> Then you could group by IP addresses for purposes like fraud checking and
> suchlike. I'm sure the BBC sites always say that standard information such
> as browser and IP address will be collected whenever you submit information
> to the server, so that's a fairly standard get-out clause.
>

That's actually a really good idea, and to add to my previous email, it
would certainly be intresting to see what topics inspire the most vote
fraud. Having Geographic and ISP info aswell would be good. Are Northerners
or Southerners more honest online? NTL customers or BT customers etc.

There's bugger all you can really do with an IP address, even a complete
> one, unless you're a malicious fellow with a botnet behind you.
>

I know that, you know that and everyone on this list knows that, but it
doesn't make as good a headline in the daily mail as "BBC giving out
information about your computers" or "BBC helps spammers" then going on to
detail all the evil things that can be done with a botnet...
Or am I being too cynical?

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Christopher Woods]

Leaving the last digit from the last octet out would be fine, though? Then
you could group by IP addresses for purposes like fraud checking and
suchlike. I'm sure the BBC sites always say that standard information such
as browser and IP address will be collected whenever you submit information
to the server, so that's a fairly standard get-out clause.
 
There's bugger all you can really do with an IP address, even a complete
one, unless you're a malicious fellow with a botnet behind you.


  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: 26 September 2007 18:54
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas


Whilst I applaud your effort, I inherently distrust online polls, and cs
disclaimed on a site that we're all familiar with:
"This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers,
dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything
important, you're insane." 

So the most intrestind data to me would be data that would allow us to see
the level of "ballot stuffig". Votes by IP would be ideal, but releaseing
would those probably against the data protection act, the next best thing
would be votes by geographical area and\or ISP 

regards,
Vijay.


On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam <  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


Part of my brief is to explore how the BBC might utilise and re-use
information and data gathered via voting, and hopefully make a business
case for releasing it.

When talking about voting data I'm thinking of examples like... 

The Daily Mini-Quiz on the Magazine -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm> 
Votes on local BBC sites -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/raw/favourite_childrens_book_east_feature.s
html
Votes on CBBC Newsround -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158> .
stm

And also things like the Player Rater
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm> 
(which I can't find an open example of, I think you'll have to have a 
look for them around 3pm on Saturday)


What I'm interested in is hearing any ideas you might have about
including that kind of data in prototypes, how you might track it over
time or by topic and so on. 

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[vijay chopra]

Whilst I applaud your effort, I inherently distrust online polls, and cs
disclaimed on a site that we're all familiar with:
"This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers,
dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything
important, you're insane."

So the most intrestind data to me would be data that would allow us to see
the level of "ballot stuffig". Votes by IP would be ideal, but releaseing
would those probably against the data protection act, the next best thing
would be votes by geographical area and\or ISP

regards,
Vijay.

On 26/09/2007, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Part of my brief is to explore how the BBC might utilise and re-use
> information and data gathered via voting, and hopefully make a business
> case for releasing it.
>
> When talking about voting data I'm thinking of examples like...
>
> The Daily Mini-Quiz on the Magazine -
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm
> Votes on local BBC sites -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/raw/favourite_childrens_book_east_feature.s
> html
> Votes on CBBC Newsround -
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158 .
> stm
>
> And also things like the Player Rater
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm
> (which I can't find an open example of, I think you'll have to have a
> look for them around 3pm on Saturday)
>
>
> What I'm interested in is hearing any ideas you might have about
> including that kind of data in prototypes, how you might track it over
> time or by topic and so on.
>

RE: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Martin Belam]

No I hadn't, thanks for pointing it out. I used to be Senior Producer on
Online Voting at the BBC for a couple of years, and so I have some quite
strong opinions about when it is right to run an online vote and when
the correct reaction is "You did *what*?" - most of those views are
probably more suited to the pub than this mailing list ;-)
 
martin
 
 
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 26 September 2007 17:15
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas


Martin,
 
Did you read this?
 
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2175214,00.html
 
Comment 




If you think the nation decides, think again



Via phone-in, vote and blog, a vocal minority appears to be speaking for
the silent majority 

Carol Sarler
Sunday September 23, 2007
The Observer <http://www.observer.co.uk/>  


Pity the poor BBC. No, come on: you really must when, to top all its
recent troubles, jobs are threatened over no greater or lesser a matter
than the naming of Blue Peter's bloody cat. The story so far goes that
the producers asked the audience to pick a name for the critter, but
when the votes were totted up, the winner - rumoured to have been either
'Pussy' or, apparently equally dodgy in street slang, 'Cookie' - was at
first deemed inappropriate, so they fibbed and declared victory for
'Socks'. Heaps of shame, tons of opprobrium, inquisition to follow. 

I do not blame the BBC for the fib, well-intended as it was to deflect
playground cackles. Nor do I think its fib was the greatest mendacity
involved: six-year-olds do not call their cats Pussy or Cookie, neither
do they have sufficient grasp of double entendre to do it for sport.
Good money says the votes were cast not by children at all, but by the
kind of people - indeed, probably the exact same people - who enjoy the
unparalleled hilarity of calling themselves Jedi on a census form. 

But that is why I do blame the BBC for offering the vote in the first
place, be it on Blue Peter, on Strictly Come Dancing or on any of the
rash of programming stunts that permit the bold declaration: 'You, the
nation, decides!' It sounds fearfully modern and embraces buzzwords like
'interactive' and 'inclusive'; in fact, all it is doing is adding to the
already alarming degree of power held by meaningless, self-selected
samples. 

The communications media have always been especially susceptible to
these groups; broadcasters refer to switchboards being 'jammed with
complaints' that actually number perhaps 80 out of the 10 million who
watched a show. The 80 will have been agitated by a predictable pushing
of buttons - cussing, for instance - that matters greatly to them, but
little to the millions. By the same token, the Disgusteds of Tunbridge
Wells might muster only a dozen letters to the editor on a single
subject but, on a national newspaper, that is usually enough to
guarantee publication of at least one. So be it; t'was ever thus. 

These days, however, in what some like to believe is democratisation
ably assisted by technology, minority viewpoints are becoming jolly
noisy. The advent of phone-in radio has expanded to fill entire networks
24 hours a day, as small numbers of citizens snuggle up together, warmed
by the illusion that because their views are shared they are widely
shared. 

Email has allowed for a massive growth in pyramid protest: if somebody
is thought to have committed insult, one person emails 10 who each email
10 more, passing on a cut-and-paste letter to the offending person or
organisation that then pings in by the hundred, regardless of how many
of the protesters ever saw or heard the original 'insult' (transsexuals
and Cliff Richard fans, for some reason, are particularly quick off the
mark). 

In print, the web now facilitates and even encourages readers to enjoin
in dialogue. Last week, for example, I wrote a defence on these pages of
scientists trying to breed pigs which might one day provide hearts for
human transplant. Within hours, a reader had posted the warning that,
given our souls reside in our hearts, recipients would thus have the
souls of pigs. It matters not that you or I or a million other Observer
readers would know immediately that this is a chap to avoid at full
moon; he selected himself as a contributor to the blog, we did not. 

And so what? you cry. Shall we deny him his say? What manner of
libertarian would disallow a voice? Not this one, certainly:
pig-botherers notwithstanding, bring them on - the expansion of
communication is one of the attributes of this generation of which we
can be properly proud. 

But, and it is a big but, if self-selected samples of opinion are to
continue to expand, so should our caution in estimating their value.
Instead, we seem to be more, not l

Re: [backstage] Voting data ideas

[Brian Butterworth]

Martin,

Did you read this?

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/comment/0,,2175214,00.html

Comment
--
 If you think the nation decides, think again

Via phone-in, vote and blog, a vocal minority appears to be speaking for the
silent majority

*Carol Sarler
Sunday September 23, 2007
The Observer *

Pity the poor BBC. No, come on: you really must when, to top all its recent
troubles, jobs are threatened over no greater or lesser a matter than the
naming of Blue Peter's bloody cat. The story so far goes that the producers
asked the audience to pick a name for the critter, but when the votes were
totted up, the winner - rumoured to have been either 'Pussy' or, apparently
equally dodgy in street slang, 'Cookie' - was at first deemed inappropriate,
so they fibbed and declared victory for 'Socks'. Heaps of shame, tons of
opprobrium, inquisition to follow.

I do not blame the BBC for the fib, well-intended as it was to deflect
playground cackles. Nor do I think its fib was the greatest mendacity
involved: six-year-olds do not call their cats Pussy or Cookie, neither do
they have sufficient grasp of double entendre to do it for sport. Good money
says the votes were cast not by children at all, but by the kind of people -
indeed, probably the exact same people - who enjoy the unparalleled hilarity
of calling themselves Jedi on a census form.

But that is why I do blame the BBC for offering the vote in the first place,
be it on Blue Peter, on Strictly Come Dancing or on any of the rash of
programming stunts that permit the bold declaration: 'You, the nation,
decides!' It sounds fearfully modern and embraces buzzwords like
'interactive' and 'inclusive'; in fact, all it is doing is adding to the
already alarming degree of power held by meaningless, self-selected samples.


The communications media have always been especially susceptible to these
groups; broadcasters refer to switchboards being 'jammed with complaints'
that actually number perhaps 80 out of the 10 million who watched a show.
The 80 will have been agitated by a predictable pushing of buttons -
cussing, for instance - that matters greatly to them, but little to the
millions. By the same token, the Disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells might muster
only a dozen letters to the editor on a single subject but, on a national
newspaper, that is usually enough to guarantee publication of at least one.
So be it; t'was ever thus.

These days, however, in what some like to believe is democratisation ably
assisted by technology, minority viewpoints are becoming jolly noisy. The
advent of phone-in radio has expanded to fill entire networks 24 hours a
day, as small numbers of citizens snuggle up together, warmed by the
illusion that because their views are shared they are widely shared.

Email has allowed for a massive growth in pyramid protest: if somebody is
thought to have committed insult, one person emails 10 who each email 10
more, passing on a cut-and-paste letter to the offending person or
organisation that then pings in by the hundred, regardless of how many of
the protesters ever saw or heard the original 'insult' (transsexuals and
Cliff Richard fans, for some reason, are particularly quick off the mark).

In print, the web now facilitates and even encourages readers to enjoin in
dialogue. Last week, for example, I wrote a defence on these pages of
scientists trying to breed pigs which might one day provide hearts for human
transplant. Within hours, a reader had posted the warning that, given our
souls reside in our hearts, recipients would thus have the souls of pigs. It
matters not that you or I or a million other Observer readers would know
immediately that this is a chap to avoid at full moon; he selected himself
as a contributor to the blog, we did not.

And so what? you cry. Shall we deny him his say? What manner of libertarian
would disallow a voice? Not this one, certainly: pig-botherers
notwithstanding, bring them on - the expansion of communication is one of
the attributes of this generation of which we can be properly proud.

But, and it is a big but, if self-selected samples of opinion are to
continue to expand, so should our caution in estimating their value.
Instead, we seem to be more, not less, slipshod in our interpretation to the
point where we confuse volume as in noise with volume as in quantity.

The eight out of 10 cat-owners who expressed a preference are now just too
clumsy to be bothered with. When Ant and Dec, or that breathy girl from The
X Factor, announce that 'the nation has chosen', they skip the bit about
'the bunch of sad gits who stay home on Saturdays and waste money on
premium-rate telephone calls has chosen' (self included, by the way).

We devour survey results, careless of method: last week, a poll 'revealed'
that two out of three people are unhappy. Now, leaving aside that I'd give
teeth to see how the questions were phrased, what this actually meant was
that two out 

[backstage] Voting data ideas

[Martin Belam]

Hi all, I have my BBC hat back on at the moment, and one of the things I
am working on is a project to do with online voting and ratings.

Part of my brief is to explore how the BBC might utilise and re-use
information and data gathered via voting, and hopefully make a business
case for releasing it.

So, whilst trying to avoid a response along the lines of "Can we have
all the data, in as many different formats as possible", I wondered what
kind of data would you like to play with, what formats would be handy,
what time intervals, and what can you imagine doing with it.

When talking about voting data I'm thinking of examples like...

The Daily Mini-Quiz on the Magazine -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm
Votes on local BBC sites -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/raw/favourite_childrens_book_east_feature.s
html
Votes on CBBC Newsround -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_604/newsid_6048100/6048158.
stm

And also things like the Player Rater
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6447317.stm
(which I can't find an open example of, I think you'll have to have a
look for them around 3pm on Saturday)


What I'm interested in is hearing any ideas you might have about
including that kind of data in prototypes, how you might track it over
time or by topic and so on.

Just to be clear, this isn't a trawl for your IP so I can go and get
stuff built. It is so I can put into a document something along the
lines of - "And one of the reasons that releasing the data direct to the
web is a GOOD THING and the RIGHT THING to do is that it only took n
hours for the lovely BBC Backstage community to come up with x fantastic
applications for the data"

Ideas welcome on or off-list to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

And please don't mention the Blue Peter cat



All the best,
martin

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/