Infor World Survey on OS/2.. INVALAD!
Michael Craig
n...@inlink.com wrote:
>
> Infoworld has invalidated the top operating system survey because OS/2
> won again a third year in a row. Check the artical out in
>
> www.infoworld.com or
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/reed/reed.htm
-----------------------------------------------
The article I read said that the survey was invalidated because "OS/2
zealots..stuffed the ballot box", not because OS/2 won again. I would
like the article's author to have elaborated on the method used to
determine that the ballot box was stuffed, though somehow I do not doubt
that conclusion .
--
Michael Craig
OS/2 bigot; WordPerfect evangelist
+----------------------------------------+
| mail: <em.pe...@worldnet1.att.net> |
| (remove BOTH digits before mailing me) |
+----------------------------------------+
Richard Steiner
Here in comp.os.os2.apps, n...@inlink.com spake unto us, saying:
>Infoworld has invalidated the top operating system survey because OS/2
>won again a third year in a row. Check the artical out in
>
>www.infoworld.com or
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/reed/reed.htm
Yes, and the resulting forum on their InfoWorld Electric web site (free
registration required) has been interesting.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
Written offline using PC Yarn + Yep + FTE under OS/2 Warp 4
Don't use commas, which, aren't necessary.
n...@inlink.com
Robert Dohrenburg
Bad, bad OS/2 zealots <g>
Robert Dohrenburg.
Leon Grossman
In message <3341D4...@worldnet.att.net> - Michael Craig
<em.pe...@worldnet.att.net>Tue, 01 Apr 1997 22:36:43 -0500 writes:
>
>n...@inlink.com wrote:
>>
>> Infoworld has invalidated the top operating system survey because OS/2
>> won again a third year in a row. Check the artical out in
>>
>> www.infoworld.com or
>>
>> http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/reed/reed.htm
>
>The article I read said that the survey was invalidated because "OS/2
>zealots..stuffed the ballot box", not because OS/2 won again. I would
>like the article's author to have elaborated on the method used to
>determine that the ballot box was stuffed, though somehow I do not doubt
>that conclusion .
>--
>Michael Craig
>OS/2 bigot; WordPerfect evangelist
>+----------------------------------------+
>| mail: <em.pe...@worldnet1.att.net> |
>| (remove BOTH digits before mailing me) |
>+----------------------------------------+
I sent the following letter to the author of the article. We'll see if I get
a response at all. I'll post if I hear anything back. The tone of the
Infoworld article was very anti OS/2 and I doubt that my letter will be given
a fair read but who knows?
Later,
Leon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Sandy,
First of all, perhaps you could refrain from calling those of us who prefer a
choice "Zealots".
I do not know how your voting procedure works but I think that it would be a
simple matter to require a valid email address for a vote to count. The
survey then sends an acknowledgement to the given address and if it bounces,
the vote is ignored. Subsequent votes from that address are ignored. At
most, a person could vote the number of email addresses (s)he has.
If ballot box stuffing did occur for OS/2 users then you only have your flawed
survey method and a very few less ethical OS/2 users to blame. This type of
campaign usually shows up on the usenet and I can assure you, as an avid
reader of the c.o.os2.* heirarchy that no such plan was voiced on the usenet
in the last several months.
Finally, have you considered the possibility that OS/2 users actually *like*
to use their OS?
Later,
Leon
Leon Grossman
Team OS/2
lgr...@ceatlabs.okstate.edu
BTW, I would be interested in hearing what other evidence you have to support
your stuffing claims. If your survey method is so flawed that it does not
keep track of the email addresses of voters or at least some way to verify
that each vote was unique or not, then you cannot make the claim that the box
was stuffed. You can only make the claim that OS/2 was six times more popular
than every other product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Leon Grossman
Team OS/2
lgr...@ceatlabs.okstate.edu
Spam email has increased in the last few weeks to hideous proportions.
My Reply to address has been altered to address this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The removable media FAQ for OS/2 is available at:
http://www.txdirect.net/users/teej/remmedia.htm
Richard Steiner
Here in comp.os.os2.apps, ezso...@microserve.net (Ellis M. Zsoldos Jr.)
spake unto us, saying:
>Their publication is supposed to be aimed at corporate I.S. shops.
>Why is it so much of a stretch to find out that they actually USE OS/2
>in the very place that IBM is pushing it?
The poll in question has little to do with "usage". Rather, it's a poll
for their Reader's Choice Products of the Year -- it's really more about
APPRECIATION for products in various categories than simple usage.
In that regard, in a corporate computing context, I would think that
OS/2 would do even better. Assuming an informed audience, of course.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
Written offline using PC Yarn + Yep + FTE under OS/2 Warp 4
I've upped my standards, so up yours! :-)
Brad Benson
Michael Craig <em.pe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The article I read said that the survey was invalidated because "OS/2
>zealots..stuffed the ballot box", not because OS/2 won again. I would
>like the article's author to have elaborated on the method used to
>determine that the ballot box was stuffed, though somehow I do not doubt
>that conclusion .
I tend to think that OS/2 won not because OS/2 users stuff the ballot
box as Ms.Reed claims, but rather because OS/2 users probably care
more about their operating system than WinUsers(tm) do. While
WinUsers(tm) were busy voting for Netscape, Office 97, or whatever
else they thought was neat, OS/2 users were just being true to their
convictions about their operating system.
Or perhaps not.
Brad
Billy Ko
Here is what I sent Sandy:
I think there is an alternative reason for why OS/2 won by such a long shot.
It is NOT because of ballot stuffing, but just because of the opposite - let's
call it "ballot dilution."
Let's face it. The whole array of Windows choices is infinitely more popular
than OS/2, and because of it, the votes are spread out over more operating
systems. There are so many flavors of Windows out there, the users are split
up into many factions.
Also, users of Windows tend not to think about their operating systems, but
more about the applications they are using. Which probably is the way it
should be. But users of OS/2 tend to think only of their operating systems.
Therefore, EVERY voter who voted for an OS/2 product voted for OS/2, itself,
while Windows users were spread out all over the place.
Thirdly, InfoWorld has a very large OS/2 following, due to the quality (and
quantity) of the OS/2 articles ran.
And, lastly... OS/2 users are VERY fond of their operating system, and
probably EVERYONE who has OS/2 voted. Look what happened to "Galactic
Civilizations," a game for the OS/2 platform. It grabbed FIRST place forever
on the PC game charts, probably due to the fact that EVERYONE who had OS/2
bought the game. Therefore, it dominated the top selling games lists for a
very long time.
In conclusion, I can only think that, while unexpected, the results are VERY
valid. It just means that those of us running OS/2 are very fond of our baby!
Sincerely,
Bill
Team OS/2
mr...@earthlink.net
1) What if it's a conspiracy on the part of M$ 'zealots' in attempt to get InfoWorld to
eliminate our OS of choice as an selection in future surveys? (Are we being framed?)
2) It's kinda ironic that InfoWorld gets all over OS/2 users' case for allegedly stuffing
the ballot box while M$ is permitted to promote and perpetuate *their* scam (i.e., Win95)
on the buying public *and* the so-called objective press. Uh-huh.
Jes my $.02.
- Mr. Dob (Carl Wawrina)
John Garfi
In message <bIyQzoHp...@skypoint.com> - rste...@skypoint.com (Richard
Steiner) writes:
:>
:>Here in comp.os.os2.apps, ezso...@microserve.net (Ellis M. Zsoldos Jr.)
:>spake unto us, saying:
:>
:>>Their publication is supposed to be aimed at corporate I.S. shops.
:>>Why is it so much of a stretch to find out that they actually USE OS/2
:>>in the very place that IBM is pushing it?
:>
:>The poll in question has little to do with "usage". Rather, it's a poll
Even more important is that this is voting (ie an election of a chose). A
poll is trying to find out what the results should be during the voting and
neds to be somewhat scientific. My problem with them throwing out the voting,
is that the only way the vote could be considered ballot stuffing is that 1 or
more people were able to vote many times. IMHO if infoworld allowed this then
it is thier own fault. The other problem would be if an inappropriate group
(ie non-infoworld readers) were able to have there votes casted. Also, stupid
of them if they let this happen.
This would be like the goverment finding voting invalid because there was an
effort by the republican party to get thier voters to vote. While the
democrats did not do anything and less democrats came out to vote. Voting is
not supposed to be a survey of usage but is to show what people are willing to
spend the time on and are willing to vote for.
:>for their Reader's Choice Products of the Year -- it's really more about
:>APPRECIATION for products in various categories than simple usage.
Hits the nail on the head :-)
:>
:>In that regard, in a corporate computing context, I would think that
:>OS/2 would do even better. Assuming an informed audience, of course.
Lastly I do not think there was a concerted effort on OS/2 users to vote and I
feel that it is the demographics of the readers that is the reason OS/2 always
wins.
:>
:>--
:>-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
Thanks John Garfi
David Anderson
In message <334261...@ibm.net> - Robert Dohrenburg
<rdo...@ibm.net> writes:
:>
:>n...@inlink.com wrote:
:>>
:>> Infoworld has invalidated the top operating system survey because OS/2
:>> won again a third year in a row. Check the artical out in
:>>
:>> www.infoworld.com or
:>>
:>> http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/reed/reed.htm
:>Bad, bad OS/2 zealots <g>
Ain't we just the dickens?? Actually, I never voted on this
one...I wonder what would happen if I tried now?
If OS/2 'zealots' managed this in the face of overwhelming
numbers of WinXX users and equally fanatical Mac users, I would
think this would be a story in itself. But then who would DARE
do a story that explored the reasons for OS/2's popularity among
its users...?
David Anderson
Calgary, Alberta.
http://www.agt.net/public/dtander PGP Public Key available
"Just another of those damn' OS/2 Warp Fanatics..."
***BE SURE TO REMOVE'.nospam' FROM ADDRESS TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL***
rdo...@ibm.net
There are lot's of possible scenarios. Somebody here mentioned that this
has been happening for years, if that's true, that says a lot about
infoworld's capacity ( or lack of ) to perform reliable polls and to
manage their computer systems, or that says a lot about OS/2 "zealots"
capacity to outsmart infoworld's staff. Either way infoworld loose.
My guess is that this column is dwindling. So by creating this OS/2
conspiracy theory the authors hope they'll regain some attention or
support ( sort of fifteen minutes of fame )
One have to read between the lines of the editorial to get the idea ie.
"Help us reclaim ...", "But with your help, ...", "OS/2 advocates
interpreted that as a challenge and made a concerted effort to prove him
wrong...", "We're willing to sacrifice this year's results, but we're
not willing to sacrifice ...", "That's why I'm appealing to InfoWorld
readers to help us ..."
The language used is typically used by tyrants or dictators to evoke
support aong their opressed populations. That's the same language that
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy used to falsely accuse US Citizens in the
50's of being Communists.
Plain and simple InfoWorlds editorial is McCarthyism at it's worst!
Robert Dohrenburg