Nashua Advocate is back!!!!!!

[babsbunny]

Ck. It Out. www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com

[snowbear]

1. They were the website....

...who booted General Wes Clark off of their "Presidential Picks Poll" because they claimed that Clark supporters were "double voting" or something like that...

I'm sure other than that allegation, they're a fine site.. But I always wondered how they came up with the conclusion that Clarkies were able to crack the code to their poll and were skewing the results.. :shrug: ?

Hopefully now that they're back on.. if they ever do another presidential poll, they'll include the good General!

[CarolNYC]

2. Didn't they also

post someone's personal info on their site without that person's permission?

Hopefully that won't happen again either....

[nashuaadvocate]

3. I won't rehash, but....

...if the question's being made in good faith, I'll give an answer in good faith: we were asked by a particular site to offer proof of certain dishonest conduct which we had alleged had occurred. Moreover, we were asked by a specific *poster* on that site to provide such proof. To issue the requested proof it was necessary to list some e-mail addresses for that particular poster, e-mail addresses which had been specifically used to engage in the conduct in question. I think demanding proof of something which requires the revelation of certain information is the same as providing consent for the release of that information.

That is all.

S.

[Clark2008]

5. And that specific poster told you that three people in her household

use the same computer (i.e. the same IP address), but all voted for the General, using their individual email addresses.

Conducting a poll by e-mail is not a good way to do it.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

4. Perhaps there are two sides.

When a poll is being taken, a serious one, people should act responsibly when asked to do so.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I agree.....and would add the other side of the coin to that....

A pollster has an inherent duty to understand and accept the imperfect methodologies and flaws accompanying polls, if he so chooses to undertake the task of polling.

E-mail polling, like on-line voting and phone polling, includes a set of inescapable pitfalls that any pollster must acknowledge.

If method chosen by pollster requires a distinct e-mail address for each vote, than that is the criteria.

If poll results indicate multiple votes coming from multiple email addresses, but only one IP number is present, conclusive assumptions cannot be made, i.e., that there is only one cause for the effected result.

Since due consideration must be given to other plausible existing scenarios such as multiple households members voting on one computer, or; individuals voting from dorm rooms, libraries, and office work complexes (which often house multiple computers running via one router), pollster cannot subjectively exclude certain scenarios from mind, while selectively including others.

In fact, pollster should consider all various logical scenarios accounting for any given activity, and therefore, cannot take it upon himself to determine which scenario the results are based on, as there is no scientific evidence to back up such conclusion.

Further, it should be recognized that the undertaking of a computerized poll cannot be foolproofed to the extent that the pollster can rationalize making an "adjustment" after-the-fact to resolve a polling flaw, by removing questions or choices from the poll due to undesired results.

Any action taken by pollster to "correct" direction of a poll based on unscientific conclusions, once the poll has commenced, can justifiably be considered as prejudicial and the corrective action taken as unwarranted.

Pollsters who do not seriously take into account the limitations in the accuracy produced by their chosen method of on-line/e-mail/telephone polling techniques, should refrain from running such polls.

Note: Soliciting email addresses from participants with the expressed understanding that the information will remain private, and then publishing said email addresses in an attempt to prove an unscientific conclusion is not an acceptable manner of operating and is not recommended. Good will and good faith are difficult to restore once participant trust is violated.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Kick!

[CarolNYC]

9. "people should act responsibly"....

Yes, they should...And that should include NOT publishing people's private info without their express permission.

I'd approach this site with extreme caution.....

[Texas_Kat]

10. I would have like to see a copy of the privacy policy that existed

before the site was shut down previously.

I assume there must have been such a privacy policy in place since all blog site owners should post and abide by a published policy.

Thoughtless and "I assumed it was an implicit okay" reposting of personal information could make a target of anyone.

The trust of posters who provide personal information (such as an email address) should not be violated either for a whim or by being too lazy to request direct, explicit permission to repost that information.

It was either an amateur mistake or retaliation.

Hard to tell which from this distance, but as a long-time web developer, both possibilities should warn off future posters.

Addendum on edit: I just searched the nashuaadvocate site. There is no privacy policy published at all. Posters beware. This blogger can sell your personal information (excluding your credit card information since PayPal will not pass that along) to anyone he likes.

Not even a nod toward protecting poster's privacy. Sad.

[CarolNYC]

11. Well, that's interesting, Kat.

Thanks for checking that out....

[Donna Zen]

12. Fool me once...

This strange poll was something that didn't interest me when I first read about it, because 1) there was never any direct proof that my vote was being counted 2) it asked me to give out too much information that would invite spam. Blame it on fatigue or just curiousity, whatever, I did write the e-mail.

Now, Mr. Z uses my e-mail address and the same computer, and has signed petitions from here. Anyway, no, he didn't e-mail the poll. Thank the goddess or I too would have had my e-mail published as punishment resulting from the site's owner disagreeing with our choice of candidate.

Living in New England, I've been to visit New Hampshire many times, contributed to the New Hampshire Democratic party, and have many great and honorable friends there. I assure you that the "nashuaadvocate" doesn't represent the type of people that I have had the pleasure of knowing. Let's hope that there aren't many like him.

Of course after all this trouble, New Hampshire's Katherine Harris made sure that my vote didn't count.

[JNelson6563]

13. They posted lots of evidence

You may want to forego whining about this, it shines a light on an ugly chapter of Clarkie behavior that is best left behind.

Julie

[CarolNYC]

14. Sorry Julie

But I think people should know when their personal info might be posted without their consent....Spin it however you want but I'm just saying people should be really careful about that site, OK?

Considering everything, that polls seems to me to have been a lot more suspicious than "serious"..but, as usual, YMMV.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

18. I'm terribly sorry

but I'm not obsessed with internet dramas (Clarkie or otherwise) so I don't bookmark links to such nonsense. I remember reading this episode; the demands for proof from the accused, the compliance with this demand and the subsequent swarm action. No one disputes Clarkie (mis)behavior was the basis of a big drama at NA (and DU for that matter), only what "evidence" was/wasn't posted. I've come to my conclusion on the matter based on the evidence they provided. You dismissing it all as non-credible, doesn't make it so. By defending the episode, claiming victimization, you are confirming it took place. I don't have the link, maybe someone who does could provide it....maybe NA has it? I can't see Skinner letting such a sideshow develop though....(not again)

As to "exhibits 'dislike' for an entire group of supporters", more nonsense. There are actually some Clark supporters I like a great deal. I've had many private discussions with several and consider them as friends. Not generally fond of those not often found outside of the swarm though.

So you've declared my account/conclusion of events in question as false (sans the evidence you demand of me), asserted I view/treat all Clark supporters as one in the same (not true) and implied I am mentally imbalanced (???). This is the substance of your brilliant refutation. Pardon me if I am less than impressed.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

19. No need not be sorry, since you are just plain wrong....

What Skinner was referring to several months ago is not the same thing that the Nashua Advocate was accusing us of. Skinner ojected to links to DU polls placed on other websites, and felt that SOME Clark supporters were doing that. So Skinner didn't want DU polls to be DUed, in essence. Skinner never accused Clark supporters of voting multiple times...which is what The Nashua Advocate did.


Seth, a one man website, who was a reknown Dean/Gore supporter (which is why you are all in the middle of this), chose to take Clark off of a poll that Clark was winning midway through, and on his website, publicly accused Clark supporters of multiple voting using evidence that wasn't evidence as the proof.

The (mis)behavior came from that individual, who didn't understand the limitation of his polling technique....and didn't understand that his offering up 3 email addresses coming from the same IP was not evidence at all....as the individual stated that she was not the only one in her household who had participated in the poll.

The site shut down shortly thereafter....why, I don't know. But I can tell you that this individual never issued an apology for the stoopid way in which he handled things....so in my book, the Nashua Advocate coming back is not good news.

Why you happen to be in the middle of all of this, acting as though you are the "voice" of the Nashua Advocate, I'll never know....
But what-E-ver...cause in the final analysis, I don't really give a damn what you think.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Texas_Kat]

16. I'm quite surprised that you don't find the lack of a privacy policy

at all disturbing.

On the site it is quite obvious that he tracks (and potentially sells) IP addresses.

From what I've read about this issue, it was a very odd poll--requiring people to actually email their choices in. Definitely NOT an anonymous (somewhat user protected) way to do things. This is an odd way to gather opinion.

The more acceptable (and less user intrusive) method is to create a form-based poll that only allows 'registered users' to vote.

Better yet, if his intention was to limit voting to one vote per IP address, place an 'unremarkable' cookie (one not easily linked to his site name) that loaded as a user voted. As you have probably noticed, this is the standard accepted practice in web development.

This method still collects IP addresses, but not email addresses. Not to use a more standard method either indicates that he didn't know how (unlikely since the blogger -- Seth Abramson -- runs more than one blog and is presumed to be somewhat familiar with technology) or he intentionally wanted to capture personal email addresses for some other reason.

So in addition to capturing IP addresses (which he can use for whatever he'd like) he was also capturing email addresses (which could then be collected and sold).

It's also possible (and it happens) that he could be collecting information on individuals for purposes of opposition research. This blogger could be anybody, even a die-in-the-wool Republican. It wouldn't be the first time something like this happened.

Democrats are very trusting of people whose rhetoric matches their own. So, again, I'd advise visiting this blog site at your own risk.

And people wonder where all the spam (and occasional FBI visits) comes from.....

[madfloridian]

17. "it is quite obvious that he tracks (and potentially sells) IP addresses."

That is quite an accusation of a website. I would imagine many track visitors, and mods and admins can see the IP address anyway usually.... but to say sell might be a little much.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Do most website collect emails addresses, stating that the

information is required as voting will be done via email (voting was done by sending Nashua Advocate an email with your vote in it)--and then, the same website, without warning, removes the choice on the poll who happens to be leading at the time, and publicly accuses an entire segment of participants of cheating and offers up 3 email addresses under one IP as evidence?

If you find another website that has done this, please let me know.

This particular pollster, if really acting out of good faith, had other options available to rectify a situation he felt was "irregular":

1. Rewrite the rules to state that only one single email address would be accepted per IP (in which case, it would restrict polling to one vote per household).
AND
2. Disqualify all multiple votes coming from a single IP (Obviously he knew which those were)
AND/OR
3. Scrape entire poll and started new poll based on new rules.

instead another option, a ridiculous one at that, was chosen...

4. Disqualify the winning candidate, not count any votes that candidate received (regardless of which votes came from multiple or single IP/Emails), and called all of those voters cheaters on a public website. Then continue on with the rest of the poll (sans the disqualified candidate) as though nothing had happened.


So when one thinks about what is unusual and stoopid, that particular website and the entire way that things were handled is what comes to my mind.

[Texas_Kat]

21. Since there is no published privacy policy, he can do anything he likes

with it, (including selling the information) and never be held accountable.

I certainly don't care if he sells information -- it won't be MY information .... I just wanted those who may not understand the ramifications of a site like this not publishing a privacy statement.

You're welcome to take it for what it's worth.... just a word of caution.