[Rush104]

Not to make it overly complicated, but I would suggest setting it up as a "Write-in" type poll, instead of a "Click the box next to the name" type. This will leave room for any additional info. I would suggest the following format-
Type -Version-Country- Additional notes

One of my votes would read-

F-84-F-USA-Virginia ANG/SEA camo scheme

I don't know how practical such a format would be, but it may be a good compromise between simplicity and comprehensiveness. Just a suggestion.

[lanslide]

Rush - I like those click the box types - keep it simple

[Rush104]

True, they are more simple. But I remember H1V's admonition about flooding the manufacturers with generic suggestions- those just end up in a stack somewhere. I'm not saying we gotta do all the research for the manufacturers, but we can help them out somewhat. Kind of like all the calls people make for the "Tarheel Hal" P-47. It's just my opinion, but I think suggestions along those lines carry more weight with the makers than a generic suggestion of "P-47".

[lanslide]

Agreed - but we need to find a way to make this a "click the box" poll. Make this a permanent feature of this site. Out in front. Admin - HELP!

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Rush104

True, they are more simple. But I remember H1V's admonition about flooding the manufacturers with generic suggestions- those just end up in a stack somewhere. I'm not saying we gotta do all the research for the manufacturers, but we can help them out somewhat. Kind of like all the calls people make for the "Tarheel Hal" P-47. It's just my opinion, but I think suggestions along those lines carry more weight with the makers than a generic suggestion of "P-47".

The basic problem with a write in poll is that it invariably favors the better known planes. Imagine trying to think of all of the realistic possibilities when answering for the 1:48 scale, which so far has included relatively few planes. A "closed end" approach, which lists a specific number of planes along with a provision to write in any others the voter favors, will remind respondents equally of all of the candidates. As a result it gives a more valid picture, one that would be enhanced if the poll could offer visual reminders as well. In the case of pictures, however, it is important that they all be of the same size, scale and aspect---again, to prevent a bias favoring planes with the better pictures. Finally, if we ask people to vote on variants and paint schemes in their first balloting, I believe that this will inhibit many who don't have the time, or will not take the trouble to research their answers. Also, unless we get hundreds of votes for the "winning" planes, the results as to mark and paint scheme will be very fragmented. Say that the A-20 wins in the 1:72 scale category for WWII, with only 78 votes. Of these 21 may opt for an RAF desert scheme, while 18 vote for a nightfighter ("Havoc"), 12 pick a Southwest Pacific cannon-armed version, etc. If we attempt to cut this any finer---by particular plane, for example-- we may get only two or three votes per scheme, which isn't really a projectable sample.

[Rush104]

Just a few more questions, then I'll let this go. Maybe I'm missing something, but with a "Click by the name" poll, who is going to make the call on which planes are in the poll? Is the first one going to be a big list of EVERY unbuilt plane, or just the ones that whoever sets up the poll would like to see?
Maybe the first one should be a write-in by each member who participates with a list of their top 15-20 by era and scale. Keep it simple, with entries like "T-33A" or "F-101B". After three months, tally those and take the top 25 percent in each category, then set THAT one up for the "click by the name" poll. Then take it from there (with the winners) concerning which units, paint jobs, etc.
I have a feeling these polls (in whatever form) , if successful, may need to be repeated on a yearly basis.

[Epapazian]

Assuming that management likes this idea, we would probably form a small and, hopefully, objective committee whose members are well versed in the eras we select to include in the poll. In my case, I probably qualify as well-versed only about the inter-war era ( 1920-1939) and WWII, so we would need some people who have similar credentials for the more recent periods. The committee would also set up the rules and scope of the poll--with management approval , of course. This would determine which eras and scales are to be included, how long the polls would be in force, how to list the candidate planes ( a randomized listing is preferable to one which always has the same plane shown first, second, etc.), how to report the findings, whether to post pictures, whether members can vote more than once and other issues. Since this will require special programming to tally the data and qualify respondents, we need to get some help from management, or better yet, have them take over this phase of the project, in addition to securing their overall approval and input. Finally, there will come the selection of candidate planes. Having seen the kinds of responses that some members provide in various threads, I shudder at the thought of having them vote first, on candidate planes,and later, in the actual poll. This could be chaotic and many people will stick doggedly to their first votes, even when we trim the fields down and try to be fair to each candidate. So I lean towards the committee coming up with the candidates, again allowing for write in voting. As you can see, organizing and administering such a poll evenhandedly is a demanding job. But it can be done and I concur with the assessment that this could be an important step for this forum to undertake.

[Rush104]

Should the votes for each aircraft be shown as they are tallied? Or would it be better to wait until the poll closed before showing the results? I favor the latter, I think it would encourage more participation...

[Epapazian]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Should the votes for each aircraft be shown as they are tallied? Or would it be better to wait until the poll closed before showing the results? I favor the latter, I think it would encourage more participation...

I tend to agree with you, but we will need some way to keep up interest in the poll after the early returns are in. At this point, I'm not sure what approach is the best. We may wish to send members who have not voted emails inviting them to do so---or to opt out of the process so they aren't "pestered" to cooperate. Here, again, such a step would require special programming to implement. We might also list those members who have voted as a further stimulus and possibly we might list the current top scoring planes in each category, but not their margin of superiority.

[Rush104]

Well, at this point I'm out of ideas. I'm just trying to ensure that these polls are as inclusive as possible for whomever wants to participate. I agree that these polls may become very effective lobbying tools, if done right.