the outsider

Yes that was an excellent post, and I agree with all of it.

BTW, I've never seen so many squirrels in Northern Clinton County as I have in the past few years. Not much competition from deer for the acorns.

BTBowhunter

Thats not what he was saying at all. What he pointed out was simply that this poll's results could not be manipulated as we've seen with other polls on here. No, it's not scientific and no HNI members do not necessarily represent a cross section of PA hunters but IMHO, when compared to most oher PA sites, this site certainly has more of the vocal opponents to PA's current deer management and yet when we have a poll like this one where every voter is accountable and the pollster cant alter anything, the results were quite different from many past polls.

Maverick 1

So tell me, how many different names did you use to log on with and vote in this poll? While you are at it, please explain how these other types of polls can be manipulated.

BTBowhunter

The thread exposing the possiblitity of the pollster changing and deleting votes is in the archives. Most of us saw it but feel free to look back if you didnt. It is interesting that the old style polls ,once a daily thing here, are now nonexistant.

This poll was different in that each particpants vote was attached to his name.

As for your other question, I sign on and post under one name and one name only. I did sign on once to make one post as btbowhunter56 (hardly created to conceal who it was) from a public computer because I was out of town for an extender time, blkpowder had asked about me, and I did not have my password to respond any other way. Are you saying that you can sign on under more than one name from the same computer? Have you done that?

Maverick 1

I guess we will have to take your word for that but you do agree that people could log on here with many different names. If that is true, why is this poll any more or less accurate than the traditional poll?

I would like to look that thread up. Can you give a hint of something to search for?

BTBowhunter

Under the old system, the polls would show an end time and a last vote time. Several polls showed up with votes listed as being cast after the poll was closed. That led to some experimenting by a few of us and it was discovered that votes could be deleted by the poll creator.

several members here participated in the "experimental" poll.

I beleive the whole thing led to Lanse's creating this one to try and seek out more fair results.

I'll search for the link but the new search feature here is a real pain.....

BTBowhunter

Found the link to the thread but the poll itself is gone. Only the posts that went with it are coming up.


http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...eer-polls.html

The bottom line is that it was proven possible for the poll creator to delete votes he didnt want. That much is still evident in the posts going back and forth between those who partcipated.

I have no idea if the new system cleaned that up but it WAS possible then to for the creator to change the end results in a poll.

Maverick 1

At any rate, most of you guys seem to put way to much stock on these internet forum polls. None of them give an accurate sampling of the statewide opinions of hunters. All they do is give a sampling of those who post on that particular internet forum. They are interesting to look at but they mean very little. Why anyone would want to try and skew the results of a meaningless poll is beyond me.

The only poll that would mean anything is if the game commission was to issue a questionere that was attached to our hunting license. I would love to see the results of such a poll.

BTBowhunter

I agree that skewing a poll like we've seen here is meaningless exercise unless it's done to further an agenda on either side.

Most of the polls that precipitated the little experiment showed results heavily slanted toward the stated opinions of their creator


I'm sure we'd all love to see the type of poll you suggest. We can only hope that the new system will eventually allow for that as well as providing a better harvest reporting system.

I the meantime, all we have is the voices of those who care enough to be heard. Unscientific, yes. Still valuable, you bet!

Lanse couche couche

To repeat, I know this is not a scientific poll. Given past controversies over the traditional poll format here, I tried to put out something that would be less subject to controversy over alleged tampering. Furthermore, I wanted to put a fine point on responses by wording questions in a manner that we could get the perspectives of people who were identifiable as non-residents/residents and public land/private land hunters. I thought that this was important because many of the debates here have thus far involved a small group of people whose frame of reference is a particular area of public hunting ground. So, it is what it is, and like it or not, it represents a wide range of opinions by HNI members in a wide range of areas in the state. That was my intent.