Below is the editorial from the April 21, 1997 edition of
InfoWorld. Because what's in InfoWorld Electric isn't always
the same as what's in the print edition, I've retyped it here.
It's, of course, prone to my typing mistakes.
New poll will determine winners of Readers' Choice Product of the Year
awards
My column declaring this year's Readers' Choice voting null and void set
off a virtual firestorm of outrage, anger, and passion, especially among
OS/2 users (See
"Help us reclaim Readers' Choice Product of the Year
awards from OS/2 zealots," March 31, page 55.) The InfoWorld Electric
forum based on the column was so active it was impossible to keep
current. I received hundreds of e-mail messages every day, and I regret
that I was unable to respond to many of them.
The biggest flash points from the column were the word "zealots," the
phrase "ballot stuffing," and the decision not to release the results if
the invalidated voting. ON the first count, I offer an unconditional
apology. On the second, I wish I had used the phrase "questionable
voting patterns." On the third count, I make no apologies, because it
would have been a mistake to publish results that we knew are
suspicious.
Frankly, we had already made too many mistakes with this year's Readers'
Choice poll. Unlike prior years, we didn't print a paper ballot seeking
your input on Product of the Year awards. Instead, we posted the ballot
only on InfoWorld Electric, failed to draw attention to the poll, and
then made the ballot difficult to find on our Web site. Nor did we
restrict voting to InfoWorld readers. The result was a low turnout in
which a single product, OS/2, received more than six times the vote of
other contenders in three categories.
The OS/2 community may have a hard time believing this, but I don't have
any preconceived notions of which products should win Readers' Choice
awards. I do, however, care that the awards are really choices of our
readers. That's why we've hired an outside research firm to conduct a,
statistically valid poll of InfoWorld subscribers using the same ballot
that was posted on Electric. We'll make Product of the Year awards
based on those results.
We considered conducting a Web-based poll in conjunction with the
telephone poll but ultimately decided against it on a majority -- but
not unanimous --call of the editorial management team. We will allow
voting on the World Wide Web next year. And we won't exclude OS/2 from
the election, a rather extreme suggestion I threw out in an attempt to
generate discussion. We had a lively forum. Thanks to everyone who
took part in the discussion.
Personal Comments:
Of the three editorials, this is Ms. Reed's most reasonable, but, of
course, I have a few comments.
Ms. Reed tells us that the results of the previous poll are suspicious.
I agree. They are suspicious and worthy of investigation. Ms. Reed
never indicated any investigating was done (looking for patterns that
demonstrate ballot stuffing).
Ms. Reed refuses to release the data on which she bases her suspicions.
Without that data, it's even more difficult to validate her claim.
She makes no mention that the telephone poll excluded anyone that
worked for a company that produced hardware, worked for a company that
produced software, or considered themselves an IT professional.
In her March 31, 1997 editorial, Ms. Read specifically asked the print
edition readers to not let OS/2 win the second poll. If that doesn't
indicate a bias, I don't know what does.