[Cruver Collecter]

Tis better to poll than not to poll.

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

Tis better to poll than not to poll.

Patience grasshopper. Patience.

[SkyBuffalo]

Patience? As far as I've seen. we've had no response from the MHII management as to whether they want to get involved in this or not. I would at least like a response of they are working on something, just hold on .... or that they would rather not get involved and we are on our own. Then we could at least start something, since, as far as I know, we are just waiting on some kind of response from the management? And it's been weeks . . .

Hello, Earth? . . . this is Major Tom . . . is anyone out there?

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by SkyBuffalo

Patience? As far as I've seen. we've had no response from the MHII management as to whether they want to get involved in this or not. I would at least like a response of they are working on something, just hold on .... or that they would rather not get involved and we are on our own. Then we could at least start something, since, as far as I know, we are just waiting on some kind of response from the management? And it's been weeks . . .

Hello, Earth? . . . this is Major Tom . . . is anyone out there?

But management did respond. It's in this thread. Gavin is "up" for the idea. In view of recent problems with our server shutting us down, shouldn't we cut management some slack? I assume that keeping the MH functioning is a more pressing short term priority.

[lanslide]

I agree, of course, that keeping the site up is priority one. I just want to keep the "most wanted model list" idea alive. A little feedback from time to time would be reassuring.

[Cruver Collecter]

Hmnn,,,, still very very quiet, somebody must be thinkin, I hope.

[Epapazian]

Conducting an ongoing poll of the sort we were discussing will require a good bit of programming work, as well as "editing" if an open-ended approach is utilized. Obviously, this can't be started unless basic decisions are made about the design of the poll, how to conduct it, how to promote it, etc. While we are waiting for management to elaborate on its own ideas, we might revisit these areas and see if we can come up with a unified recommendation without going through the whole thing all over again.

In my opinion some of the questions are these: 1) Do we ask about every major era and scale separately or ask about several scales ( 1:72 and 1:48 ) and let respondents list planes from any era they wish? 2) Do we ask respondents to list individual marks, variants and even paint schemes for the planes they want or just the basic plane? 3) How many planes can be named per question per respondent? What happens if they list too few or too many?4) Do we wish to supply a "reminder"list of numerous planes not yet done by Dragon, Corgi, HM, etc.--as an optional reference---- that respondents can refer to if they choose to as a voting aid? Should we inform respondents that certain "new" planes are already scheduled so they don't ask for them and "waste" such votes? 5) How much time do we allow before the poll closes? 6) what is the best way to stimulate the highest response rate so we get a meaningful sample? 7) Should this poll be conducted annually or more frequently? 8) Should top-line results be posted while the poll is in progress? 9) Should voters be allowed to alter their picks or do they get only one shot at it per poll?

[Cruver Collecter]

One of the problems noted with this poll is the lack of response previous polls have received. I have yet to see a poll on this site exceed a hundred responses. In one of your previous posts you indicated desired response of 300-400 and so far polls on this site have not even come close to half of what you indicated would be optimum. You stated in your last post that much work will be required to get it started, and seems a shame to put in hard work for under a hundred responses. My thought is to test the waters first and see how many members would actually participate in this poll. Just put out a thread requesting members inputs as to whether they would actually participate in poll and even further indicate you needed a set number of responses before a poll would even be initiated (Maybe 200-300 responses?) and put a 2 to 4 week suspense on it to keep it from becoming an open ended discussion. Thought the reason behind this was to provide input to manufactures as to what their customers wanted to see. I think an end result of less than 100 responses would not support the outcome we are looking for. The idea behind this poll would be great way to voice collector's opinion to manufactures, but from what I have seen so far lacks support to make it a success. There have been weeks of discussion on how to conduct this poll, but it might be best to see if you have support for it first.

[lanslide]

I agree with Cruver - but we need admin to lead us unless someone here knows how to start up the thread poll to take a poll!

[Epapazian]

I agree with both of the last made comments. Unfortunately, if we or management did such a pre-poll in the usual manner, I doubt that we would get 100 responses. The difference between the proposed poll and normal polls on the forum is--or should be---how aggressively it is publicized and promoted. A typical poll is posted and just sits there for a number of days with no additional prompts or stimuli to make people aware of it and participate.Then it disappears. Under such circumstances, 100 responses is not at all unreasonable----bearing in mind that an unknown percentage of members probably weren't even aware of the poll while others felt no urgency to participate even if so inclined. When I suggested a target of about 300 voters for our poll, I made it clear that pressing members to participate via some form of ongoing promotional effort, was essential. I feel that this also applies to the proposed pre-poll or voter interest study.