- 4,323
I read an interseting story a while back that demostrate how wording can drastically change what results you get so you have to be careful what you ask.
For years the wording on a drivers license test in a few regions said:
If you want to participate in the organ donor program, please check this box (obviously a box was placed after this sentance).
Participation was always in the low 20 percent wise.
One year, some regions switched the wording slightly to read:
If you want to refrain from being an organ donor, please check this box (again obviously a box goes here).
Result?
Almost 95% participants in those areas while neighboring areas that didn't change the wording remained unchaged.
The reason is that the wording made all the difference. People didn't feel bad about not being an organ donor when they were asked if they would like to do something extra by becoming one. But when faced with the feeling that they were shirking a duty or dropping out from being an organ donor, their response was very different even though the result was the same.
The poll is flawed because it asks if it should be in. This means if you feel it should be in you vote yes, however everyone else must fall in the no category, this includes those who don't care either way as they have no other vote.
Now certainly you say they can simply abstain from voting right? Well not really, because why should something be kept out of a game? It should be kept out if it will hurt or damage the majority of people. If you don't care you aren't getting hurt or damaged.
So let's say it looks like this out of 100 people:
30 people do NOT want it. It will damage the game for them.
60 people really don't care, it's not something they care particularly about and it can in no way hurt them
10 people really want it in because they will like it.
Here are two polls:
Should GT have a rewind function?
30 people vote no (because they DO NOT want it)
60 people also vote note because they do not think it should... they don't think it shouldn't either, but the question is do you think it should... if you don't care either way, then you do not think it should.
10 people vote yes, because they think it should.
Result: 90 vs 10
Now lets' ask that same poll slightly differently:
Should GT ban rewind feature?
30 people vote yes, because they do not want it.
60 people vote no because they don't care, why should GT ban it? They are not against rewind and that's what the poll asks.
10 people vote no because they want rewind and banning it means they can't have it.
Result 30 against 90 for.
You see how wording a poll gets different results?
Now let's examine the situation again: There are lots of features in GT that most of us probably never use... I mean I pretty much don't play arcade, I don't use the driving assist line and I didn't use Bspec mode.
Should they be taken out of GT?
No... why should they... they don't hurt me, they don't damage my experience... I don't use them but so what?
And their in lies the rub... the measure of whether something should be left out of a game (outside of personal preference - but rather for the good of the game and it's user base) is wehther it will substantially hurt the majority of the user base.
In this case, rewind would not hurt the majority of the userbase (and this is ignoring that the reasons listed against rewind are generally pretty vacuous and empty).
So there you see, wording can cause a poll to be flawed. The example I posted was a the exact issue I am talking about: he did not feel rewind should NOT be in GT5, but he had to vote no because there was no I don't care option and he did not actively want it in GT5.
get real toro.
