ewx: (Default)
Richard Kettlewell ([personal profile] ewx) wrote2003-09-16 12:48 pm
gerald_duck: (lemonjelly)

[personal profile] gerald_duck 2003-09-16 08:56 am (UTC)(link)
Indeed. But we can at least deduce that nobody he knows is a non-ticker. Everyone ticked at least one box!

( And yes, I chose "imperial" rather than "metric", because he's probably more imperious than he is useful for measuring things. )
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2003-09-16 11:27 am (UTC)(link)
On the contrary - if you don't tick anything it doesn't mention you at all. So there could be dozens of non-tickers...
gerald_duck: (Default)

[personal profile] gerald_duck 2003-09-16 01:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh.

Bloody quirkly polls mechanism.

Is there any way to offload the entire poll dataset and manipulated it yourself in comprehensible ways, I wonder?

[identity profile] imc.livejournal.com 2003-09-17 04:41 am (UTC)(link)
According to the percentages listed just now, 28 people answered the first part and 29 people answered the second part.

So if you don't vote in the radio-button poll then you don't affect the percentages in any way. I suppose this might be the appropriate way to do the calculation. I suspect this may also apply to the ticky-box poll, but I'm much less certain that that's the right way to compute the result (because `none of the above' may well be a valid answer).

[identity profile] pseudomonas.livejournal.com 2003-09-16 12:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, my reasoning was similar - a person can be imperial, although these days of democracy that's quite rare, but metric? nah. I suppose whoever it was that got their arm to become the standard cubit was metric. And there's something measured by the pace or foot-length of Heracles, but that was all a long time ago. I'll just stop wittering now.