Re: Wasting your money and my time.

Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>Mike Given wrote:
>>Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>>>steveb wrote:
>>>>Janet Kegg wrote:
>>>>>So you don't think it's legitimate to ask participants in a
>>>>>newsgroup to fill out a survey in hopes that this prof (or
>>>>>more likely some poor grad student) can glean some useful
>>>>>info from it?
>>Actually, "no", it's not "legitimate" in any way. That's not
>>what newsgroups are for, and it's especially not how this
>>particular newsgroup was designed.
>Yes, Mike, it *is* a legitimate, if not particularly smart,
>way to gather information for research.

Whereas it might be legitimate from a research POV, it is most
certainly NOT legitimate from a Usenet/e-mail POV; it's abuse and
deserves to be treated as such.

>Your distaste for the methodology does not invalidate it;

Only when you substitute your oranges for my apples, sweetcheeks.

>it is an approved research technique for gathering data
>in the social sciences.

Like I give a ***; I'm not here to facilitate some twit's (likely)
ill-conceived attempt at data gathering.

>>>>>And how else would you contact the newsgroup members
>>>>>except by email?
>>By actually participating in the newsgroup; if one can't
>>be arsed to participate then one should not begin to expect
>>the newsgroup participants to be arsed to participate in
>>one's survey.
>Actually, no. There are times when having contact with
>the subjects supplying the data can skew perception of
>the results.

If the survey is about group behavior, then don't discuss behavior;
talk about knitting, or pumpkin beer, or some other such thing.

>Since we don't really know what information they're looking
>for,

I believe the topic of the research was pretty explicitly stated,
and the fact that it appeared in a number of different newsgroup
auspices would state it's quite general, as opposed to trying to
observe a particular species "in the wild", so to speak.

>we can't judge whether or not that's the case this time. I
>mean. having people refuse to participate is data in and of
>itself.

I think I said pretty much just that in my previous post. I
couldn't help but remember this:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.singles/msg/e817e144b9b0f0f3
..old chestnut posted on classic some while back.

>Besides, I didn't get the survey, so could you post for me
>the line that says "newsgroup regulars with crummy spam
>filters who opt not to participate will be subjected to
>projectile vomiting."? If you can't be arsed to participate,
>don't.

Analagous to projectile vomiting, I'd actually take the survey and
give wildly varying answers to skew the data as much as one tiny
datapoint can. But in reality, whether or not I want to participate
isn't the point.

>>No matter how you square it up, it's harvesting Usenet
>>for email addresses and the email sent thereto is, by
>>rote, UBE nee "spam".
>As mentioned, it's not necessarily a smart thing to do.

It demonstrates either a) complete disregard for the lab rats
involved, and/or b) complete ignorance of the topic being studied and
(much) more research is necessary about the basics *before* attempting
to formulate a even-vaguely relevant set of survey questions.
My vote is for both; this mug might as well be throwing darts over
his shoulder at wall-stuck post-it notes with the survey answers
written on them rather than bothering actual people.

Of course there's always the very slim possibility that the spam
*itself* is the actual bait in this "trap" and the various reactions
to newsgroup participants *to* that spam is actually what's being
observed.
Time for a fresh layer of tin-foil in the old chapeau.

>>>>I don't think it's legitimate in any way at all. This is an
>>>>open public forum, and any attempt to survey participants
>>>>should have started with a post here, for us all to see.
>>>Oh, bull***.
>>Actually, he's almost exactly right.
>Actually, he's not, but, hey, thanks for playing.

"Almost" in the sense that dumbass researcher shoulda researched the
media they're trying to survey first.

>>>If they had posted here, they would have been mocked and flamed
>>>right back off the group,
>>If they posted a survey request, you're right, and that is a very
>>good thing. Advertising for lab rats is still advertising.
>So? The med school here advertises for study participants - lab
>rats- all the time. Local radio and TV stations send out surveys
>with addresses harvested <gasp!> from phone books, too. If I send
>you the surveys, will you get all morally indignant and chastise
>them for me?

No. I'll "chastise" you for submitting my name for that crap.
And you really won't like it.

>>>with Allison leading the charge, most like.
>>You say that like it's a bad thing.
>No, that's your pious posturing creating attitudes that better
>suit your sad little rant.

"Pious"? Hah. I haven't even hit the tip of the pontification
iceberg yet.

[..harvesting..]
>>>Spammer usually don't go to as much trouble.
>>><sigh>.
>>You're wrong, ya know, at least about how much "trouble" it
>>is to scrounge up a perl (or some other language) script that's
>>capable of scouring a newsfeed for precisely that information
>>with almost no work at all.
>And yet, spammers rarely go to that much trouble.

And there you prove just how utterly clueless you are on the topic
of Internet e-mail abuse. You obviously haven't the slightest notion
of what professional spammers are up to.
Not that our survey-boy in this discussion is a "professional"
spammer, per se, but you know nothing about what spammers actually do.

>>>>>The prof's email address is available on his web site,
>>>>>perhaps you should contact him about the possible hoax and,
>>>>>if it's not a hoax, inform him of idiocy of this effort.
>>It's not a hoax, and this alleged professor should have gone
>>though some minr due dilligence before sending spam.
>If he has funding, he did go through due diligence. He had to
>write up a protocol outlining what he wanted to do that was
>passed through his university peer approval process, and apply
>for and get a grant.

Show me where this criteria is listed, willya? Because I'm nothing
even mildly approaching a social scientist and I betchya even I could
put togther a better project than this ham-handed, amateurish fop -
and I can always put some free gummint money to good (or at least
better) use.

[...]
>>>>simply *misguided*.
>>Someone that's a professor in the "Computing Services and Systems
>>Development" department and taking NSF money?
>>"Idiot" is far too kind. I think "presumptuous dumbass" fills
>>the bill.
>He's a doctor,"presumptuous dumbass" goes with the territory.

Then a piddling little projectile vomiting should be par for his
course.

>>It's possibly illegal under the US "CAN-SPAM" act as well.
>Or not.

And spammers "rarely go to that much trouble".
Hey Gracie, pull my finger, wouldjya? G'head.

>>>Welcome to Usenet.
>>Er, "no". It's a email problem, not Usenet.
>No, you presumptuous dumbass, he is complaining about Usenet
>netiquette, not email.

The primary abuse is using Usenet-harvested email addresses to
populate his survey list

>That's why he's using words like "group" and "off group".

There you go again, getting your fruits all mixed up.

>>So chances are "Robert Kraut" will learn that it doesn't
>>take a survey to find out that the first "guidelines for
>>building successful online groups" is to spank the
>>bejeezers out of spammers posing as survey takers.
>Or what it takes to make most of a newsgroup go all frothy
>and righteous and indignant.

Provoke a creature in what it considers to be its own
habitat/territory and 'yah', you might just get bitten.

>Isn't that hook kinda painful?

If you could tell the difference between a Usenet trolling thread
and outright email abuse, you might have a point.

Mikey (..other than the one atop your noggin, that is.)

.