One of the parties in our home town has switched on its website an online questionnaire to one of the controversial new topics in Borgholzhausen to make in this way contribute to public opinion.
The questionnaire 'Should you think should be built according to the Hard mountain? " the SPD
Now we come in power permanently on questionnaires, in which one can express his opinion on various topics with one click. So nothing unusual.
One problem is such an online questionnaire, but if its result placed in a process of political expression, while its earnings will be accepted at face value. Especially when - is implemented, the questionnaire with the simplest of technical means - as in this case.
my view, is the questionnaire in its present form largely worthless and the currently displayed result after 2,600 votes:
- Yes, why not 20%
- Yes, even with a new market?. 26%
- No, no way.
- 48% if at all, only residential development. 1% 2% I do not care
may require any person any of the scheduled vote at the end of 6.3. in any direction distorted . Why is that and how it could perhaps do better, why should the rest of the text position.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
The main problem of this type of survey is the anonymity of the Internet: The people who put a questionnaire online, do not know who clicks on their websites. To quote 
Actually, the anonymity of the internet in such surveys is very useful: Since no one must fear to be associated with his opinion, one can increase the participation and perhaps a honest vote expected, just like a real election with polls and voting booth.
But anonymity has a disadvantage that outweighs the benefits: Since the questionnaire (or the technical system behind it) can not see who can fill it, a multiple voting can not be effectively prevented. And while no one would come up with the idea, in the general election immediately take several ballots from the pile (he / she would be prevented, hopefully by the poll workers), anyone can vote in an Internet poll as often match up the result or is it the desire leaves. choose
The only incentive "decent" are the respective moral standards and the small technical hurdle that can be easily overcome:
Small survey counterfeiters guide for beginners
prevented the in Hardenberg survey used a free service - as most such services - apparently the multiple voting: if one of its Web browser to the questionnaire later visited again, we see only the current result, but is no longer a choice. So, the questionnaire has yet realized that you have already voted. But how does he do it?
The questionnaire leaves to their own Web Browser is a small data packet, called a cookie (English for biscuit), who tells him that you have already voted. The simplest test is now the questionnaire again from another computer access, and voila, you can vote a second time. Or you can install yet another web browser on their PC. And now you can vote third time. And a fourth, fifth, sixth time
But it's also faster and with less effort than with a computer change or a software installation: You have to just delete the cookie of the questionnaire in their own browser. How this is done, one can easily figure out for each browser type on a web search . An even easier way, the possibilities for anonymous surfing browsers such as Firefox or Chrome offer. Here you can vote as many times as you want. One or two dozen votes can thus create in a minute, the time of a crime scene was so boring enough to their own opinion in the survey results to ordinary-making process.
survey forgery for professionals
But that's not the end: If someone has something more in-depth technical understanding, he can easily create a small program which automatically adjusts. This procedure may be such that the 'vote' slow and goes no further notice. More than the fact that at some point voted once more 'person' as has Borgholzhausen inhabitants.
Conclusion: The survey results have any
The just described ways to overcome the questionnaire technique are not particularly clever tricks or even illegal. There is also a sufficient number of people who can deal in this manner with web pages. Even if there is only one person has the necessary technical skills (and even in the nest Borgholzhausen is that there are competent individuals), the validity of the questionnaire is made entirely in the discretion of one person, and not as it should have been in which the entire citizenry.
The result of the questionnaire - Both the current as well as the final - it will not be allowed to draw conclusions about the actual opinions in the public, at least you can expect anyone seriously to honor the results of the survey. This makes it inappropriate for a political opinion.
How can we do better?
for all online surveys, there is always the tension between the aspects:
- anonymity of participation,
- reliability of the vote,
- effort and not least the
- representativeness
In Hardenberg survey is the anonymity high and the cost low, but the reliability described as too low. In the area of professional evaluations, which require both anonymity and reliability must be high, often use questionnaires to make use of a pseudonym: this, each potential participant in a private key that must be distributed in advance but must. Here, then, the cost is high.
As an alternative to these types of survey can be found today more and more groups in social networks like Facebook: The vote takes place here by simply clicking 'Like me' at the appropriate point. This ensures fairly reliable, that a person votes only once. However, for the barriers to participation are much higher: not only is a membership in the network, necessary to supplement the voters must be prepared at least in their attitude to their environment on the Internet to document public.
basically all you have to finally ask for pure online surveys continue the representation in question because of essential part of the population, it is not yet of course move in the network, even if Internet access are available.
Hence the time for online surveys in the political sphere has not yet come easy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment