# What about polls anyway?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Some comments by other forum members prompt me to ask this question: What about polls anyway?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Agenda*

My problems with most polls is that the most of the time the people who create them already know the answer to the question. They really have an agenda.

If a person starts a poll on who the greatest composer of the classical era we already know the top vote getters are going to be Mozart and Haydn. Normally the pollster already thinks that Mozart or Haydn are the greatest composers of their generation and he is looking for grounds to support this conclusion.

Most of us like what we like and do not need the results of some artificial poll to support our musical preferences. If I appreciate the music of Johnson I will continue to listen to him even if only 10% of the members approve of his music.


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

I vote other

"they don't serve Vodka fast enough"


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The majority of polls, particularly when it comes to the more popular topics around here, are being started by people who already know what the "right answer" is, and are looking for popular certification, justification, reinforcement etc. Good discussion can result from such polls, at least in theory, but the poll itself is usually borne of petty mindedness and serves a purpose that is something like musicophilosophic gerrymandering.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

From what I see of them here, 90% of them at least are gratuitous, for pretty much the same reasons stated above by CrudBlud.

But I voted 'other' because you did not specify an option for "site litter and detritus." For me, most of them are just like trash eddying about on the pavements of the city.

Less than 10% of them yet, are actually good at stimulating actual discussion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Less than 10% of them yet, are actually good at stimulating actual discussion.


I fear you will not find this poll one of the blessed few... :angel:


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> [...] If a person starts a poll on who the greatest composer of the classical era we already know the top vote getters are going to be *Beethoven* and *Beethoven*. [...]


My god, somebody's hacked into my computer and is manipulating the keyboard as I type ...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I love polls. It should be used on many threads to promote discussion. But the best part about a poll is simply this: do not participate in it if you don't like it, just like any other thread. And the second best part is it is quite fun reading and clicking the option(s), and helps you to understand the thread's purpose. Polls are good. Pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

What about polls about polls, Ken?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I love polls. It should be used on many threads to promote discussion. But the best part about a poll is simply this: do not participate in it if you don't like it, just like any other thread. And the second best part is it is quite fun reading and clicking the option(s), and helps you to understand the thread's purpose. Polls are good. Pure and simple.


LOL, hook line and sinker, you took the bait. :lol:....:lol:....:lol:....


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> LOL, hook line and sinker, you took the bait. :lol:....:lol:....:lol:....


Was it a bait? Well so be it, you caught a big fish then. Cheers and long live polls! This thread is a poll!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Oh, not another *'poll about polls'*? They are *a canker in the body politic* of TC! (Why wasn't that option provided?)

But for the plain simple 'poll', they are fab. The people who oppose them *just don't get it*. It is *not about the voting*. A poll attracts comment & discussion, particularly when the poll options don't provide what a poster wants. 
The only downside of polls is that they attract *'polls about polls'*...

But I am not going to start *a poll against polls about polls*. I wish you well. It takes all sorts to make a world.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Oh, not another *'poll about polls'*? They are *a canker in the body politic* of TC! (Why wasn't that option provided?)
> 
> But for the plain simple 'poll', they are fab. The people who oppose them *just don't get it*. It is *not about the voting*. A poll attracts comment & discussion, particularly when the poll options don't provide what a poster wants.
> The only downside of polls is that they attract *'polls about polls'*...
> ...


I would think anyone who is clever enough to create a poll on TC is more than likely also clever enough to phrase a question or topic in a way far more likely to not only promote discussion, but phrase it in such a way that the participants might actually stay more on point than they do in polls.

But hey, I like that old premise of the salon, where a topic was named, and the host or hostess would stay in attendance and gently nudge anyone getting away from the topic back to the topic. I know as a wish or preference, that is a wildly unrealistic hope, but anyone can dream


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Better job*



Crudblud said:


> The majority of polls, particularly when it comes to the more popular topics around here, are being started by people who already know what the "right answer" is, and are looking for popular certification, justification, reinforcement etc. Good discussion can result from such polls, at least in theory, but the poll itself is usually borne of petty mindedness and serves a purpose that is something like musicophilosophic gerrymandering.


You did a better job of explaining me than I did.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> But for the plain simple 'poll', they are fab. The people who oppose them *just don't get it*. It is *not about the voting*. A poll attracts comment & discussion, particularly when the poll options don't provide what a poster wants.
> The only downside of polls is that they attract *'polls about polls'*...


This 
also it's just nice to see how alone (or not) you really are in this world
and to be able to give your personal opinion without having to write whole books about it, without being afraid people might say anything about it because its silly or just strang, knowing that at least the OP have thought of the same thing you think (whether he agrees with it or not)


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I only use poll threads to vote for Mozart, regardless if he is a choice or not. Naturally, I did the same here.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

deggial, that's a great idea. I'll be voting for Lully the very next poll I see!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Looking at the results, I see that the majority prefer other which is probably either their favourite composer or 42.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Gilberto said:


> I vote other
> 
> "they don't serve Vodka fast enough"


South Koreans are better at it, apparently:

http://gawker.com/which-countries-take-the-most-shots-per-week-1515499779

As regards the topic of the thread, I think polls engender interesting conversations and the sharing of new information.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Looking at the results, I see that the majority prefer other which is probably either their favourite composer or 42.


Well, I was going to say, polls are against my religion.

Polls are Offensive to The Prophet Zarquan (Wherever He Is). The Holy Guide particularly regards them as Abominations, Crimes against nature, Ghastly sins, Menaces, and Threats.

They pollute our precious bodily fluids, weaken our moral fibre and Other (feel free) as well.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Polls allow someone to say something without getting into a huge argument. Like that poll on Lang Lang. I voted - but I'm never telling what my vote was!


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I was going to vote singularly for "abomination" not only because the word fits so well, but also because there's a kind of catharsis in uttering the word itself.

However, "menace" is a word little used anymore, and deserves to be resurrected, thus I chose it as well.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polls certainly free some from constructing their own thoughts, while allowing sheepish "voting" from selections on a prefabricated multiple choice list made up by another


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Positive choices*

I fine it puzzling that every choice is negative.

I know many members who like polls. If the poll included an "I love polls" choice it would probably be the most popular.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I fine it puzzling that every choice is negative.
> 
> I know many members who like polls. If the poll included an "I love polls" choice it would probably be the most popular.


Negative? As the OP I must say that I find some of the choices quite positive!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I voted other which was to say that I find most polls on this site amusing.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I prefer the debates in which people present evidence and arguments for their claims, and where all of that information is analyzed rationally.
I voted "menace"... to the reason.


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

Radames said:


> Polls allow someone to say something without getting into a huge argument. Like that poll on Lang Lang. I voted - but I'm never telling what my vote was!


hmmm not wanting to tell how you voted in the Lang Lang poll. I have no idea if you opinion was positive or negative... really! :devil:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Among the choices -- "abominations" leads! I find that quite positive.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I prefer the debates in which people present evidence and arguments for their claims, and where all of that information is analyzed rationally.


*????????? Where?* :lol:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

On *a thread without a poll*, a question is asked, and people answer. Some people answer simply 'I think this', and some give reasons; after a while, someone disagrees, and a discussion turns into a debate, often hinging on a small matter, a definition, or whatever. Sometimes this continues pleasantly, and sometimes not.

On *a thread with a poll*, one gets the chance to vote on a question, and people respond. Some people simply vote - others vote and simply tell us what they think; some vote 'other' - or not - and give details for their vote. Someone else will disagree, and a discussion turns into a debate, often hinging on a small matter, a definition or whatever. Sometimes this continues pleasantly, and sometimes not.

Oh, and also on *the thread with a poll*, there are posters who object to the poll, say how infantile it is, pour cold water on the OP's aspirations, etc.

That's the main difference that I see...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> On *a thread without a poll*, a question is asked, and people answer. Some people answer simply 'I think this', and some give reasons; after a while, someone disagrees, and a discussion turns into a debate, often hinging on a small matter, a definition, or whatever. Sometimes this continues pleasantly, and sometimes not.
> 
> On *a thread with a poll*, one gets the chance to vote on a question, and people respond. Some people simply vote - others vote and simply tell us what they think; some vote 'other' - or not - and give details for their vote. Someone else will disagree, and a discussion turns into a debate, often hinging on a small matter, a definition or whatever. Sometimes this continues pleasantly, and sometimes not.
> 
> ...


Yes, but it wouldn't be great if those silent voters could also make a contribution to the debate?. 
After all, this is _Talk_-Classical, not Poll-Classical. 

----------------------------------------------------------

From my part, I can say I learned a lot just by discussing the topics. Even when I was in the "wrong" side.
What's the problem in discussing things?. The "worst" that can happen is that you were wrong in your assertions. And that's not even bad, since it's an opportunity to polish your own ideas and beliefs.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> *????????? Where?* :lol:


Is the word "where" misplaced in that sentence?.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Yes, but it wouldn't be great if those silent voters could also make a contribution to the debate?.
> After all, this is _Talk_-Classical, not Poll-Classical.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ...


Excuse me, but where in my post do I say it's not right to discuss things? I am saying that discussion takes place on both poll and non-poll threads, on matters great and small; and simple non-explanatory posts do too. So if polls achieve discussion, and many TC members, like me, like polls (I like non-polls too), then why make posts or set up threads grumbling about them?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> Excuse me, but where in my post do I say it's not right to discuss things? I am saying that discussion takes place on both poll and non-poll threads, on matters great and small; and simple non-explanatory posts do too. So if polls achieve discussion, and many TC members, like me, like polls (I like non-polls too), then why make posts or set up threads grumbling about them?


Excuse me, but where in my post I said that you said that?. 
You mentioned the differences between the two systems, I made comments about the second method.
The second part is not directed to you, that's the reason of the dotted line.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Excuse me, but where in my post I said that you said that?.
> You mentioned the differences between the two systems, I made comments about the second method.
> The second part is not directed to you, that's the reason of the dotted line.


You say 'what's the problem in discussing things' & you say that applies to 'the second method'. Despite the dotted line, your post began by quoting me, & so it gave the impression that I see a problem in 'discussing things'. I do not, and like you, I learn a lot from discussions.

What I do say is that 'discussing things' happens on both types of thread, because -
If it's not a poll, people answer a question and give details.
If it is a poll, people explain why they voted, or ask why other options were not available.

Also on both types of thread, people sometimes just answer simply without details - 'I voted for this', or 'I agree'.

So I am saying that the main difference seems to be that on poll threads some people, gratuitously, pour cold water on the OP for publishing a poll. The protesters usually post their opinion anyway, but they seem to be congratulating themselves on being 'above' polls, and that seems a trifle ungracious to me.

I think if you join in a thread, you should deal with the main issue being discussed. It's in order to question mildly the terms of the original post, but in some threads I notice that a member who likes posting polls is constantly being criticised just for doing that.

A lot of people here *like* polls.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> You say 'what's the problem in discussing things' & you say that applies to 'the second method'. I say 'discussing things' happens on both types of thread, because -
> If it's not a poll, people answer a question and give details.
> If it is a poll, people explain why they voted, or ask why other options were not available.


Yes, but that comment was directed to the silent voters, which only can exist in the poll threads.



Ingélou said:


> So I am saying that the main difference seems to be that on poll threads some people, gratuitously, pour cold water on the OP for publishing a poll. The protesters usually post their opinion anyway, but they seem to be congratulating themselves on being 'above' polls, and that seems a trifle ungracious to me.


Well, I can't answer for that people. In my case, my complaint about polls is that, often, the bad contextualization of the poll question often derails in misunderstandings that obscure the interesting points.
In a thread without a poll, that's less likely to happen, I think. Lately, all of the polls I have seen are heavily "charged". I refer to Crudblud's post here in this thread for more details about this.



Ingélou said:


> I think if you join in a thread, you should deal with the main issue being discussed. It's in order to question mildly the terms of the original post, but in some threads I notice that a member who likes posting polls is constantly being criticised just for doing that.


In my case, as you may recall, my focus is always in the first of those categories (with the exception of "mildly" ), since I think it's a basic thing to do in any discussion, even more when I think there are misconceptions. Again, I can't answer for the other category.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Fair point. Polls that are based on opinions may be 'set up' to expect a particular response. Non-poll questions can do that too, but perhaps not as readily - though recently there have been some humdingers.

The polls I like best are open-ended, just asking which symphony or composer or era or instrument one finds most interesting, complex, offputting or whatever. 

But I still think too much grumbling goes on about polls; and too much gratuitous criticism of the OP, in both poll and non-poll threads. I speak as one nobly wounded in the line of duty...


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Hey I'm sorry maybe this post shouldn't be made and maybe I should just stay out of some threads that bother me
I just want to answer a question in the first place, because I could have this all wrong 
but aren't forums for fun? 
this isn't meant as a retorical question
I sincerely hope no one will take this wrong or will look down on me or whatever, I wouldn't post this if I didn't think this is important

The only reason I personally am here is because I am lonely, and want to talk a bit about classical music, and prefer subjective to objective. 
If I wanted "serious" and rational discussions I could have them at school, or someplace else in real life where it is more serious and the discussions actually have a direction to some point. Even in discussions at school being subjective is allowed though if you need to be, and it is also mostly accepted if there is something you can't see in a particular way because of certain experiences or feelings.
But here I'm just because I want to know other people with similar interests, and to get to know things others like and learn to appreciate them that way, also here to talk about connections I see that aren't really there and other kinds of "nonsense philosophising". 
Okay, I must admit I also am interested in talking about more technical and theoretical issues *to a certain degree*, and mostly on threads that are specificly meant for that, like "is it possible to improvise with tone rows", "which works by monteverdi are considered baroque music and why", "what is the history of the saxophone" and "where lies the exact border between additive and divisive rhythms". Everyone can be as analytical and objective if that makes them happy, and in return everybody should be likewise glad for people that need to be emotional and subjective, both sides should just accept each others choices in this and don't force each other or make people feel bad about it by saying things like "everybody's being so subjective, this way we are getting nowhere " or "you can't really enjoy music anymore if you study or think to much about it ". Just my personal opinion.

To return to the topic, I like polls and sincerely hope people won't stop making them, Ive already explained why. Also when I for instance want to get to know symphonies of Schumann I have to start with something and then it is an option, I don't say its the "right" way but it is a way nevertheless, to first have a look in a schumann symphony poll and start with the symphony that has been doing best. Maybe this isn't the best way but I simply know no better way, except beginning with the first or last, reading about them (but I rather listen first and be surprised), or doing eeny, meeny, miny, moe. All things I do sometimes, until I have listened at least a few times to all his symphonies.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

lupinix said:


> Hey I'm sorry maybe this post shouldn't be made and maybe I should just stay out of some threads that bother me
> I just want to answer a question in the first place, because I could have this all wrong
> but aren't forums for fun?
> this isn't meant as a retorical question


Yup. In case you haven't realised, this whole thread is (possibly intentionally) humorous. There can be a rather depressing tendency to treat music like a religion and to declare _Anathema Sint_ whenever somebody disagrees with your tastes. It's far better to relax and feel the noise.



lupinix said:


> I sincerely hope no one will take this wrong or will look down on me or whatever, I wouldn't post this if I didn't think this is important
> 
> The only reason I personally am here is because I am lonely, and want to talk a bit about classical music, and prefer subjective to objective.


Nice to hear somebody saying what's important to them. The whole point of TC is to talk about classical music in a friendly and relaxed way and it's nice to share.


----------



## MrTortoise (Dec 25, 2008)

Taggart said:


> Yup. In case you haven't realised, this whole thread is (possibly intentionally) humourous. There can be a rather depressing tendency to treat music like a religion and to declare _Anathema Sint_ whenever somebody disagrees with your tastes. It's far better to relax and feel the noise.
> 
> Nice to hear somebody saying what's important to them. The whole point of TC is to talk about classical music in a friendly and relaxed way and it's nice to share.


Here here! Well said!


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

To begin with, polls are charming because one is asked for one's opinion. That's always nice. You could also say, one is given a choice. Or one is presented with the necessity of making a choice, which appeals to our task-oriented nature - especially because we sense that the task will be easily accomplished. Polls are intriguing because they create the impression that there are indeed answers. While one only expressen one's opinion (from a pre-selected range of options), the underlying notion of a poll is that in the end there will be a Result. Still, polls can also be pointless from the start, when one feels that its premise or its options are dubious. Then the poll is almost like a kind of shell game. By participating, one has already been fooled. But as long as it's free, what's the harm?


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2014)

Taggart said:


> The whole point of TC is to talk about classical music in a friendly and relaxed way and it's nice to share.


This is true. I think the exasperation at polls has more to do with their perceived purpose than their being a poll per se. The customary example is the "Do you think x is rubbish?" or the more subtle, "Do you think that x type of music is inherently more melodic than y?" (implying, therefore, that x is better than y).

Some of the polls are fun, entertaining, informative, provocative without being provoking. Some have probably been for nefarious purposes. Some are just fatuous, not fun. Like any of the threads, you make a choice to join the discussion - you can sometimes ignore the vote component.

However, the general etiquette of online conversation is more difficult to maintain than the etiquette of face-to-face discourse and debate, and polling is only one aspect of that etiquette. For example, I object to polls less than

* to members who don't answer reasonable questions when seeking further information or clarification,
* to members who leap to presume meaning without taking the trouble to ask a question for clarification of meaning.
* to members who refuse to acknowledge when they can now understand a different point of view.
* to members who can only 'transmit' and never 'receive'.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

Taggart said:


> Yup. In case you haven't realised, this whole thread is (possibly intentionally) humourous. There can be a rather depressing tendency to treat music like a religion and to declare _Anathema Sint_ whenever somebody disagrees with your tastes. It's far better to relax and feel the noise.
> 
> Nice to hear somebody saying what's important to them. The whole point of TC is to talk about classical music in a friendly and relaxed way and it's nice to share.


Yeah I thought the OP meant it humorous, but I'm not sure everyone here does, and I just had to express myself on this
Thank you for your reply


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

lupinix said:


> Yeah I thought the OP meant it humorous, but I'm not sure everyone here does, and I just had to express myself on this
> Thank you for your reply


The OP *was* humorous, and *at first* the replies were too, but after a bit it got serious... 

Lupinix, I think your post above, #39, was excellent. I like polls, and I like non-polls too. There are very technical threads that I can't understand, let alone contribute to, but yes, what is wrong with people who appreciate music in a more subjective way?
There is a Scottish saying, '*We're all Jock Thomson's bairns*', meaning we're all human beings - live & let live.

Well said, Lupinix! :tiphat:


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> The OP *was* humorous, and *at first* the replies were too, but after a bit it got serious...
> 
> Lupinix, I think your post above, #39, was excellent. I like polls, and I like non-polls too. There are very technical threads that I can't understand, let alone contribute to, but yes, what is wrong with people who appreciate music in a more subjective way?
> There is a Scottish saying, '*We're all Jock Thomson's bairns*', meaning we're all human beings - live & let live.
> ...


Ingelou, your polls have always been delightful, and your insights are always... well, insightful.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

lupinix said:


> Yeah I thought the OP meant it humorous, but I'm not sure everyone here does...


As the OP, I can assure one and all this this poll is SERIOUS, deadly serious. And important.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

KenOC said:


> As the OP, I can assure one and all this this poll is SERIOUS, deadly serious. And important.


None of those are possible options in the poll!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

lupinix said:


> or doing eeny, meeny, miny, moe.


that's indeed a time honoured method and my favourite by far. Sometimes I just go on eeny-meeny-ing and forget what I was counting in the first place


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Taggart said:


> None of those are possible options in the poll!


any poll that calls attention to our ever weakening moral fiber is dead serious.


----------

