This discussion has been closed.
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Monday, 6th April 2009
Is one of those dodgy negatives again, to me.
Would it be better for Peggy not to get involved in Tom's business?
Yes, Peggy should get involved in Tom's business.
Yes, Peggy should not get involved in Tom's business.
No, Peggy should get involved in Tom's business.
No, Peggy should not get involved in Tom's business.
All a bit muddled. If I did vote, for what would I be voting?
It's subliminal - bet you buy some sausages today.
message 2
No, I am a vegetarian.
Yes : It "Would it be better for Peggy not to get involved in Tom's business?" so she shouldn't invest
No : so conversly it would be better for Peggy to get involved in Tom's business and she should invest.
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:22 GMT, in reply to RosieT in message 1
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:29 GMT, in reply to Polly Tunnel in message 4
Thanks, Polly!
So I vote, Yes, for she should NOT invest
and
No, for she should invest.
My head hurts.
In reply to RosieT in message 1
Rephrasing the question this way:
"Would it be better for Peggy to avoid getting involved in Tom's business?"
– should make it clearer.
'Ö'
Would it be better to avoid these pointless votes?
Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:19 GMT, in reply to RosieT in message 3
Could be quorn sausages?
DH.
Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:47 GMT, in reply to Leaping Badger in message 6
"Would it be better for Peggy to avoid getting involved in Tom's business?"Â
Or even: "Should Peggy get involved in Tom's business?".
Vote NO, folks, you know it makes sense.
>Would it be better for Peggy not to get involved i
in Tom's business?
Did I really write that? Not very good, is it. I must try to do better with the next one.
Yes, yes ad thrice yes.
'Ö'
, in reply to message 11.
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Tuesday, 7th April 2009
in reply to Leaping Badger in message 11
Only giving voters the choice of Yes, Yes and Yes must be against Guidelines, surely?
Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:12 GMT, in reply to rosietonthemove
Ooh years ago I was told by someone who designs surveys that you should try and phrase all answers so that they are positive statements. Apparently if you give people the opportunity to answer with a negative they go on and on and on... much like a message board, in fact.
Not sure I see the point of the weekly poll. It's not as if the plot will change or the producers will slip in an alternative ending. And I don't know how to say this politely, but we don't know how honest or sincere people are when voting.
And you can vote every day too!
>And I don't know how to say this politely, but we don't know how honest or sincere people are when voting.
You could say the same thing about posts on the message board.
The vote isn't for everyone. You don't have to take part, or even read it. But thousands of people do like to express an opinion in this way and we're happy to give them a chance to do so.
It's also interesting that sometimes the opinion in the vote contradicts what appears to be the majority opinion here.
Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:08 GMT, in reply to Keri Davies - Host
We-ell maybe I should just have said that there is a perennial problem with representative samples and self-selecting samples. [Much harder to sustain a devil's advocate stance on a MB than it is to vote with deliberate thoughts of cats amongst pigeons.]
, in reply to message 15.
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Wednesday, 8th April 2009
Keri, there is one thing I really would like to know. Are the results of the votes on this site looked at in any way by the editorial team when judging the success or future direction of storylines, or are they just placed here as a bit of fluff for those who like taking part in such things?
'Ö'
"A bit of fluff" sounds a bit disparaging.
We certainly look at them, but it's with interest rather than for direction.
, in reply to message 18.
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Friday, 10th April 2009
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:48 GMT, in reply to Keri Davies - Host in message 18
"A bit of fluff" sounds a bit disparaging.
We certainly look at them ...Â
Communal navel gazing is sooo bonding
Happy Easter, Keri!
<"A bit of fluff" sounds a bit disparaging.
We certainly look at them, but it's with interest rather than for direction.>
Perhaps it would have been better worded "a bit of fun for the participants'.
Thanks for your response.
'Ö'
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.