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.

grr. edited.

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.

Exactly. This is where things get tricky for me. If we're close on the two cities then we get into a delicate matter of what tips the balance. If it's 2 votes extra that can't attend for one city, but we've got 5 extra votes that really prefer the other city, out of lets say 65 votes, then we're in a pretty tight margin and it's for all intents a tie.

Could we do it the way we decided between DC and Montreal? Jessica set up a Mr. Poll with

Would go
Might go
Can't go

for each city. The results are linked in that post, too.

JenP "F2F 3: Who's Bringing the Guacamole?" Jun 27, 2005 6:27:42 pm PDT

The reason that I complicated it up in my original drafts was to try to have as many layers of data to fall back on as possible, in case of functional ties. (ie-first, attendence, then preference, then real excitement)

Here's a two-question idea:

If you can most likely go to only one of the cities:

• Seattle
• San Francisco

If you can make either city, which would you prefer:

• Seattle
• San Francisco

Answer one question, based on your situation.

Say the first question comes out +-5, we look at the second question to make the call.