> This isn't nearly as interesting of a discussion as you think it is.
I'm glad we found someone who can objectively decide what's interesting! Now you can suggest books and movies to me! Do you work for Netflix?
But seriously, I never made a value judgement about the poll. The poll costs real time, and real money to host. But data from a poll is not a window. Adding noise into a poll is not breaking a window.
This blatant inaccuracy is actually harmless, because it basically invalidates the two buckets which were already going to be an insignificant part of the poll. Absent any response I would've said those buckets are there to absorb troublemakers, but pg's response implies I'm giving him too much credit. The bigger risk is people who are fudging by one or two buckets, giving plausible but inaccurate data. Hell, the whole poll could actually be inaccurate, but we're focusing on the fact that there are a few joke responses which can be discarded safely.
They didn't just click in the < 10 and > 90 sections which, yes, were obviously not useful. They clicked everywhere else too, putting noise into the other fields.
I get to decide this isn't interesting because I'm half of the discussion. And I'm telling you, this is boring.
This isn't nearly as interesting of a discussion as you think it is.