'Underneath'
Plan what to do, what to wear (you can never go wrong with a corset), and get ready for the next BuffistaCon: San Francisco, May 19-21, 2006! Everything else, go here! Swag!
I'm thinking, since the reasoning behind the information we want is two-stage, maybe the question should still be a two-parter, e.g.
1. Where can you attend? (Options: Seattle yes/no, SF yes/no)
2. Where do you prefer? (Seattle, SF, no preference between them)
I agree with billytea's two-part question. It gets us the required information clearly, without having to sort through too many layers.
There are two important totals: Who wants a given city, and who can go to a given city. The latter should be the priority -- correct? But the former will be considered.
This is how I feel about it.
bt's suggestion would get that info. out, yes?
is the first deciding factor which city people CANT attend? that seems a bit negative to me.
Think of it as the deciding factor being which city would have the largest number of potential attendees.
Are we assuming that if someone can't attend in one city then they will definitely attend in the other? That's a pretty large leap.
Are we assuming that if someone can't attend in one city then they will definitely attend in the other? That's a pretty large leap.
This is true. I was thinking that if someone can't attend either (e.g. me), they just wouldn't vote. But maybe we add an option to the first question to cover "can't attend either".
Alternatively, it seems the main issue with the first question is not absolute numbers, but the difference in numbers who can attend between the two cities. If that's true, then someone who can't attend either won't really change the decision-making whether they get counted or not.
I can see the distinct possibility of folks voting "Can't attend" for one city for whatever reasons, and then when the dates get closer finding out they can't attend at all no matter what the city.
I say this with so much love and please don't be mad at me, but...
Seattle:
Yes
No
San Francisco:
Yes
No
Why aren't we voting like this? I'm not trying to be bitchy or smartassy. We only have 2 cities. There's no point in having "Either" cause if people can go to either, well, then, they'll go.
I can see the distinct possibility of folks voting "Can't attend" for one city for whatever reasons, and then when the dates get closer finding out they can't attend at all no matter what the city.
Of course, but obviously we can't plan for that.
Are we assuming that if someone can't attend in one city then they will definitely attend in the other? That's a pretty large leap.
No, but if one city gets 44 yes and 12 no and the other gets 32 yes and 23 no, it gives us a pretty good idea. Even if the many of the 32 are hugely excited about the city and the 44 lean more towards eh, I'd rather go with the first one.
I can see the distinct possibility of folks voting "Can't attend" for one city for whatever reasons, and then when the dates get closer finding out they can't attend at all no matter what the city.
Oh yes. And vice versa, and so on and so forth. Of course, that's an issue regardless of how we word the question; all we can find out now is a best estimate of numbers at May. t skip discussion of interpreting statistical data
If there's a clear difference between the cities now, it's probably a safe bet that there'll still be a clear difference when May rolls around, though the magnitude will probably move one way or the other. If there's only a difference of a few people, though, it's probably best to remember there's some uncertainty in it. Which I think means that it doesn't need to be an exact tie to be treated as a tie within the margin of error.