clongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.JonThe majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.2. Totally different distribution.3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.Hmmm. That's possible.Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.
Yegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.JonThe majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.2. Totally different distribution.3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.
JonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.Jon
clongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.
Yegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008 8:42 AMQuoteclongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.JonThe majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.2. Totally different distribution.3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.Hmmm. That's possible.Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.No way of checking, sorry to say.
Oberon_Command - 14/1/2008 6:35 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 14/1/2008 8:42 AMQuoteclongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.JonThe majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.2. Totally different distribution.3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.Hmmm. That's possible.Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.No way of checking, sorry to say.Could you try checking the IPs to see if there's a large number that have the same IP?
Chris Bergin - 14/1/2008 10:41 AMQuoteOberon_Command - 14/1/2008 6:35 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 14/1/2008 8:42 AMQuoteclongton - 14/1/2008 3:41 AMQuoteYegor - 13/1/2008 10:34 PMQuoteJonSBerndt - 12/1/2008 11:55 AMQuoteclongton - 12/1/2008 10:21 AMQuoteYegor - 12/1/2008 11:00 AMHmm… All of sudden the number of people voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” doubled overnight (somewhere from midnight – in a very short time) from 19 to 38. When “If accepted the DIRECT would require only sensible, peer-studied changes” gain only 10% - 11 more votes at the same time.IMHO there is something fishy in this.Why would you say that? It's pretty standard that when it comes to polling, a lot of people don't make up their minds until they see some of the early responses. There is something to be said for listening a LOT before you open your mouth. In actual matter of fact, DIRECT actually got its start that way. There was a WHOLE LOT of listening to people who know what they're talking about before the design even began to gel.It does sort of seem strange. Particularly if no other votes were cast for the other items in the same overnight period - especially considering this poll has already been out there for a while.JonThe majority of people voted in the first couple of days. Then there was something like 7 votes a day. “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” was getting steady 10% of votes all that time.Then all of sudden 30 new people voted overnight where “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” got 65% of votes. In that “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” number doubled. Then again there were 7 votes a day with the old distribution.1. Unusually high activity in a short time period.2. Totally different distribution.3. Out of 19 peoples voted “If accepted the DIRECT would require major overhaul” just one voiced his opinion.IMHO with the probability of 99% these votes were fabricated – someone just created many user profiles and voted.Hmmm. That's possible.Chris. Is there any way to check the validity of this suggestion? Put this way it sort of does sound a little odd.No way of checking, sorry to say.Could you try checking the IPs to see if there's a large number that have the same IP?We can, but not one who posted for what.
Yegor - 14/1/2008 6:12 PMSince results of the poll can be manipulated I suggest voting by putting a post with your choice into this thread.You do not need to do so if you already stated your opinion.Then we can count posts in a couple of days.
Yegor - 14/1/2008 11:12 PMSince results of the poll can be manipulated I suggest voting by putting a post with your choice into this thread.You do not need to do so if you already stated your opinion.Then we can count posts in a couple of days.
kraisee - 11/1/2008 11:34 PMConstructive criticism is, and always will be, welcome regarding DIRECT.However "constructive criticism" was not what JIS was engaged in.While months of constant claims of "can't believe you" and "it will never work" are certainly criticism, they couldn't be termed constructive. The purpose of all JIS' questioning has not been to help identify weaknesses in order to help us to improve the proposal, it has been to find weaknesses to utilize as justification why JIS must be right and we must all be wrong.We put up with it for months. Sometimes you just need to bite your tongue and just put up with people like that. For a while it could even be 'flipped' into a good thing too because from time to time he gave us opportunities to explain bits of DIRECT in more detail - always valuable for new readers.But his endless negative attitude simply chapped my a$$ the other day, so I called him out on it - publicly. He clearly didn't like that and I embarrassed him. He made this poll to try to rally support around him, but it backfired spectacularly. Paraphrasing Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair in the TV show Bablyon 5: "You should never hand someone a gun unless you're sure where they'll point it".But let it be known that even given this very clear and unveiled animosity JIS has shown towards the DIRECT Team's efforts, he is still most welcome to bring his questions back to the DIRECT thread any time he likes.JIS has asked some pretty good things now and again - valuable things which have sometimes made us "check again" to make sure we are indeed covered correctly. Such things are well worthwhile for us - it keeps us on our toes But I beg him to please check the negative bashing attitude at the door in future. Questions are very welcome, but that constantly-negative attitude is just not by anyone on the DIRECT Team.I'm extending an olive branch over this matter - if JIS is willing.Ross.
Seattle Dave - 15/1/2008 12:58 AMI voted 3, simply because if anyone thinks an 80 page PDF only requires a peer study is deluded. I think this explains the low votes, as a lot of people like Direct, but there aren't any real options here without sounding negative about Direct.