Most on-line forums offer opinion polls on a wide variety of topics, as does OLO. I visited Andrew Bolts site to find out more about the launch of his half hour Sunday morning gig ( I know, I will have to wear sack cloth and ashes as penance). I noticed his poll which asked “will you watch this program”, Yes or No?

As of this morning the poll shows 36% Yes and 64% No.

Curious? This is AB’s web site, why would 64% of his faithful vote against him? This opens up a number of possibilities.

Firstly, that two thirds of those visiting his site are hostile. This seems unlikely although if true, he would appear to be a greater threat to some than first imagined.

Secondly, that those visiting his site prefer direct interaction with him on his blog, rather than seeing him on TV. Which seems a bit like “conditional support”?

Thirdly, is it possible that his opposition is hitting the “No” button in great numbers to skew the numbers in a hostile act founded on a perceived threat?

This is a very curious result, any explanations?

GY, do you have any concerns in relation on-line opinion polls and have you any suspicions of your polls being distorted?

Must be spin doc, surely not?
34% said they would watch him? rather eat worms!

I answer these polls all the time.

I think about what would be the popular response, and pick the opposite. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Maybe people read Andrew because they want their daily dose of outrage and self righteous indignation. That's why I read lots of stuff I don't agree with.

I remember that some years ago the ABC introduced a "right wing" radio talk show as a counter to allegations of leftist bias.

Like the long defunct Alan Jones TV show, it bombed in the ratings and sank like a stone.

Maybe some viewers are more interested in a show that promotes fair discussion and not as just another pedestal for a zealot to rant from.

You can get the same thing from any number of radio shock-jocks.

I guess Gina Reinhardt may have made a bad call in sponsoring him but he can still get his $800-odd appearance fees from Insiders if it doesn't work out.

Considering Spindoc's three questions in reverse order, I would begin by observing that any claimed online poll result would only be worth a glance if that poll had been conducted under a 'you may only vote once in this poll' rule. The 'you' referred to is, of course, the uniquely identifiable interaction of a particular computer ('yours') with the software of the site conducting the poll.

The tacit assumption is that few persons have access to multiple connections to the internet which they could, if desiring to skew a result, use to effectively vote multiple times in any one poll. I am not sure as to whether each computer on a LAN (local area network) having internet access is uniquely identifiable by the polling site's software should a vote be attempted to be cast by a single person having access to the multiple computers on that LAN. If each computer was uniquely recognisable, one would tend to think administrator privileges with respect to that LAN would be needed if one person was to use those multiple computers to cast recognised 'genuine' votes in the poll in question.

Notwithstanding the seeming practical unlikelihood and/or difficulty of one or a few motivated individuals overcoming the technical barriers to registration of multiple votes in an online poll, it is not hard to imagine that a commercial or organisational entity with an interest in skewing a result might mobilise multiple online 'identities' in the form of many different computers and their associated internet connections in order to do so. Boosting, or retarding, the apparent popularity of a media celebrity (or bete noir) as revealed by an online poll might be just the sort of occasion where the deployment of such resources could be considered worthwhile, provided, of course that it was considered likely that someone was going to believe, and act in some way upon, the (skewed) poll result.

Would such online poll results be likely to be used, for example, in deciding whether Andrew Bolt's TV slot would be retained or cancelled by a media organisation? You tell me.

spindoc's second question highlights the fact that a response in terms of the question asked is not necessarily fully revelatory as to whether the respondent is generally supportive of, or opposed to, in this case, the views expressed by Andrew Bolt. A negative response may mean nothing more than that the respondent is unwilling or unable (eg. through work or other commitments) to watch such TV program at that time of day.

A negative response may just as easily reflect an overriding dislike or distrust of the particular medium (eg. TV in general, or even the specific channel) upon which AB may be appearing, without there being any dislike of AB's views. It may indeed be the lack of interactivity implicit in a TV show that may be being voted against (presuming the votes to be all 'genuine')in this blog poll, not the commentator. spindoc refers to this latter possibility as reflecting 'conditional support' for AB.

All of which brings us to the question as to why, whether as a passive (?) audience, or in perceived interaction as with blog comments, some people follow such commentators? Is it because such commentators articulate views that their followers feel unable, or are too time poor, to express so well themselves? Is it because such views aren't seen to be being articulated competently, or at all, in what is expected as being the 'real world' of politics, where in due course there might be an expectation that some of those views may eventually be given legislative effect?

Finally, to address spindoc's first question as to whether it is possible that "two thirds of those visiting [AB's] site are hostile", I think it might have to be admitted that it is possible, if on other opinion or organizational sites hostile to AB's views there are links posted with encouragements to vote down, for example, a proposed or newly announced TV slot. The problem is that this would not fool the blog site operator, as trackbacks would show the links through which such votes had come.

Food for thought.