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.