If you ever spent any time at the rabid rightwing website Free Republic, you know that they love to encourage their membership to skew internet polls by voting en masse in support of their point of view. Well, it seems that another rightwing site takes umbrage at that same thing happening to them:
Andrew Sullivan story:
LGF removes the Republican candidate from their Internet polling. Here's the rationale:They aren't "cheating," as in voting multiple times, but they have sent out emails and posted the link to our poll at several spots on the web, urging people to go vote for Paul. The end result is the same -- the poll results are skewed, and it's not an accurate measure.
So conservative online enthusiasm and activism is now officially forbidden by the LGF thought police. They're scared, aren't they? The reaction from the Rove-bots strikes me as unwise. All they're doing is giving Paul the oxygen of an insurgent outsider. And as we know well from the Bushies, if it's them against insurgents, the insurgents win.
Comments (3)
His site, his rules. The way I read it, he was curious about the opinions of his readership. The point was that the Paul people were getting non-readers to participate en masse.
Besides, it's a frickin' blog poll. It's almost as meaningless as complaining about a blog poll.
J.
1. Posted by Jay Tea | May 17, 2007 3:07 AM
Posted on May 17, 2007 03:07
If you think LGF "took umbrage" you should see how the left-wing sites react when someone messes with one of their polls.
Or, for that matter, when someone posts something that's "off message" from what most of their members consider to be gospel.
Even sites that are nominally NOT leftists get sorta crazy. Digg, for example (an LGF story that gets posted on Digg gets "dugg down" nearly instantly, even if it's a good one with a real point).
2. Posted by cirby | May 17, 2007 6:01 AM
Posted on May 17, 2007 06:01
Yeah, I remember some threads over on Wizbang Classic that I tried to reply to but the folks in charge decided that I was off-topic and deleted my post.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy. When I post something on here, I deliberately try to leave things up in the air to inspire conversation. If you tell everybody all there is to know about your view on the subject in the original note, then there really isn't much left to say other than "I disagree" or "I agree" and that runs contrary to the way I view an interactive medium like the Net.
3. Posted by Paul Hamilton | May 17, 2007 2:49 PM
Posted on May 17, 2007 14:49