Re: Not as secure as we thought?

Douglas A. Walters — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:18:28 -0000

Mr. Kiesow

I’ve just read your “Web Notes” blog entry of the 12th regarding the polls. I might have a suggestion to alleviate some of the inflated numbers you occasionally see, though not all of them.

But first, a word of confession: Those 18 “votes” recorded from adelphia.net were in all probability mine. I’m a regular, registered non-resident reader of the Telegraph and have been so for some time now. I read every part of the website nearly, including the polls on occasion. Unfortunately, in order to read the polls we must “vote.”

In all likelihood those 18 recorded “votes” related to the situation with Dr. Julia Earl, which I have followed as best I might since the whole matter blew up three months ago. Those 18 “votes” – or rather 17 of them – were cast solely for the purpose of checking “the public pulse” on the issue.

Programming is not my forte` and I’m a bit rusty at web coding, but the remedy I propose is rather simple at least on its face: In posting the polls, you might include an option to “view poll results without voting.” I’ve seen other newspapers use that option in polls and have found it rather convenient, as I am a strong proponent of the “one person, one vote” philosophy.

While it does nothing to address the security issue you’re currently grappling with, it might go at least some distance in reducing inflation of poll results.

With kind regards and a wish to be part of a solution rather than a contributor to an obvious problem, I am

Douglas A. Walters

Disqus - Latest Comments for Douglas A. Walters

Re: Not as secure as we thought?