This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great to see that you guys are into it already. I'll modify my graph script sometime in the next week or two, and then we're back into it again! Also, one suggestion - would it be an idea to add the most recent poll to the top of the table, so that this is the first thing you see? Or keep it so that it's at the bottom? Looking forward to working with you all again! -- Trevva ( talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So, it ended up being a bit more than a few days. But I finally managed to put a new version of the graph up there. I'm very open to suggestions for improvements etc if there's something else you'd like to see on it -- Trevva ( talk) 08:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there was a major change made to the date formatting style within the last month or so, so that "16 January - 21 January 2010" has been replaced with "16-21 January 2010". I agree that the result is more human readable, but it makes it less machine readable unfortunately, and has broken the R script. I'll see if I can make some mods in the next few days and get it working properly again -- Trevva ( talk) 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, first off, sorry total noob with discussion etiquette so sorry if this is not the appropriate place or not formatted correctly. What I have is a request. Under the main graph could we generate a graph with a much shorter timeline? Now we're close to the election I'm really interested to see week by week changes in polling. Perhaps 3 months before polling day would be a good start point. Obviously a graph with a shorter timeline will be less accurate and more prone to fluctuation, but with the current one I really struggle to see how the parties are doing with their campaigns. Thanks. Jonathan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.108.49 ( talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
"9 May 2011 – The "Zero Budget" is released, with $1.2b cuts to spending to help fund the rebuilding of Christchurch after the 22 February earthquake" The Chch earthquake only contributed to about 10% of the government's deficit I think this is pretty POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.117.138 ( talk) 09:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is the Horizon poll comparable to the others? It seems it asks a very different question (asking for preference in undecideds). More worryingly, it seems from the webpage that HorizonPoll has self-selection bias, and so is a poll of people interested in doing online polls for a chance to win an iPad, not a representative poll of all New Zealanders. It does some fiddly weighting for past preference, true, but is still a fundamentally different sample space. There are enough results from the (comparable) other polls, that the Horizon poll is a confusing factor in this list of polls; it does not track with other polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.148.210 ( talk) 00:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this poll looks odd. Polls on either side are consistant. Suggest it is treated with care, pending further investigation as to its methodology and philosophy.
They state:
METHODOLOGY NOTE:
Horizon party vote polling differs from other polls which telephone voters on landlines at random, and express decided voters as a percentage of 100 and do not weight results on 2008 party vote.
Horizon selects its respondents by e-mail to match the New Zealand population at the 2006 census. Respondent samples are further weighted by age, gender, ethnicity, personal income, region and party vote 2008 to provide a representative population sample aged 18+.
Party vote respondents are further filtered to exclude those not registered to vote and not intending to vote. Horizon also polls larger numbers of people than most other polls, in order to better indicate support for smaller parties, which have been vital in forming coalition governments under MMP.
What is interesting on its site is a table showing movement between what people voted for in 2008 with their preferences now. NealeFamily ( talk) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this poll is unreliable. Anyone can sign up online to be a part of the poll and they offer gifts to those that join. Even if it was reliable it distorts the graph because of its different methodology. It should be removed Sobitemybum ( talk) 07:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I would also agree with the consensus - if its a self-selecting poll, it probably shouldn't be in there. The fact that they get a result that is many stand deviations away from the others also suggests they're doing something "different" (bad different, not good different ;-) Shall we skip over it? -- Trevva ( talk) 09:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the Horizon polls is necessarily "bad different", but it is clearly incomparable, and so it needs to be analysed separately. Yes, Trevva - please skip over it. 203.173.244.240 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
Updated the figure to reflect the removed Horizon poll. -- Trevva ( talk) 07:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The polling average for National is superimposed on the graph legend. It needs fixing to make it easier to read. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have dipped my toe in to the R script and moved the legend to between the Greens and Labour. I hope its not too clunky. Mrfebruary ( talk) 07:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I knew this was going to be an issue at some point, but forgot about it. I have put a modified version of the script up on wikimedia so that it places the legend at the very bottom - hopefully this looks a little tidier. If you'd like to see some other changes/improvements, please just let me know... -- Trevva ( talk) 09:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Compliments on your script. It worked flawlessly in downloading and cleaning the data. Mrfebruary ( talk) 07:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The caption of the graph says that parties clearing the 5% threshold get included in the graph. NZ First, although polling low most of the time, has cleared the threshold twice. We need to either include NZ in the graph, or change the stated criteria for inclusion. Since the same criteria are used in the pages for the 2005 and 2008 elections, I think it would be best to include NZ First here. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Lcmortensen above. It would be great to see a seperate graph of the minor parties, expecially with the amount of interest they bring to the election. ----
I would commend Ridcully Jack on taking the initiative to add the graph of the smaller parties. However, having it as a thumbnail doesn't work out so well unfortunately - it tends to disappear behind the larger graph on my 1024x768 display. I see two alternatives: 1. make it a full size graph, on the same size as the other graph. 2. Combine the two figures into one, alternative layout. Here's an example of 2 that I test-drove around 2009... Alternative split graph design Variations on this theme are also possible. My vote goes for option 1. -- Trevva ( talk) 12:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added a new graph showing a comparison of the minor parties, following the above suggestion. The criteria I've used for inclusion is polling over 1% (but not consistently over 5%), which means a party has a chance of bringing a list MP into parliament if it should win an electorate seat. As it stands, JA's Progressives and Mana would not bring any list MPs into parliament should they win an electorate seat. (It's not clear that the Progressive Party is even contesting the 2011 election). In fact, parties need to get to (around) 1.5% to bring in a list MP on the strength of also winning an electorate, so setting the cutoff at 1% is probably generous, and it could be a little higher. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 02:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ridcully Jack. I'll have a look at the script and see what I can do to get Mana party in. Parsing the HTML is a bit of a nightmare, so its possible that there is something odd in there! -- Trevva ( talk) 10:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Mana is also working in the script now. I was a bit in doubt what to do with their polling before party creation, but decided to set it to NA (missing) rather than zero. New version of the script (see graph description) has the option to produce either a small parties graph, or a major parties graph -- Trevva ( talk) 19:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to follow up, I have included four parties in the small parties graph - ACT, NZ First, Mana and Maori. I was probably too generous including Mana, but anyway. United Future hasn't made it above 1.0%, so they're out. -- Trevva ( talk) 19:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way the R code can be modified to use the meta colours for political party colours? Some of the colours are a bit off (especially the ones I've used); it would be nice to be able to use #F5E4BC style colour names. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 08:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is! R accepts hex colours, so I can just read them directly from the table... I'll look into it. -- Trevva ( talk) 12:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. The new version of the script (see the image description) uses the same meta colours as the table, and also takes the party names from there as well. -- Trevva ( talk) 19:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This row appears in the poll results:
31 July 2011 – New Zealand First announces at annual convention that it will repeal the anti-smacking legislation if elected to Parliament
Is this really noteworthy? Lots of political parties release policies, especially nearing elections. Either every policy announcement is notable (and you won't be able to find the poll data for the policy announcements) or policy announcements need to meet a relatively high standard of news-worthiness. Tax packages, budgets, by-elections, changes in leadership, expulsions, and controversies that might affect voter perceptions are valid inclusions. This seems not to be. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 10:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to have a clear list of what is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the poll results table. Since the table is primarily a record of polling, and not a record of politcal events, events which change the politcal landscape significantly should be included. At the moment, the table includes:
Also, we currently have some events which are less about the makeup of parliament and more about significant party platforms
It seems that deciding which policies get included is less clear-cut, and might need discussion. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully no one minds the inclusion of the Fairfax Media Research International polls. I have checked the criteria used to conduct the poll, and it is nearly identical to the four other polls - telephone poll of 1000 voters, and the question looks very similar to the one TV3 uses.
A bit high on the National figures compared to the others (then again, Fairfax isn't exactly politically neutral), but the minor parties are comparable. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 13:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the 2011 Tauranga oil spill is noteworthy for the table.
Any suggstions for how to neutrally describe the event? (POV will easily rear it's head when discussing government response, but it is possible that perceptions of the speed of the response will show in the polls). Ridcully Jack ( talk) 04:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the poll date be the date the poll is published or the date(s) that the poll was conducted? Since the difference is usually on a few days it probably isn't a huge problem. 115.188.243.92 ( talk) 20:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Some work may be needed to include another column for the Conservative Party. They poll at 1.1% in the latest Herald poll, significantly higher than some of the others in the table. Of course, this could be a one-off, but it will be interesting to see whether they also feature in tonight's TV One poll. If anyone with experience with wiki tables would like to add a column (if you think it should be added), I will try to get the R code sorted to include them in the minor parties graph. (Some fiddling similar to Mana's shortened trend line will be required, and Trevva, the originator of these lovely graphs, seems to have been away from Wikipedia since August). Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note of thanks to all the contributors keeping this page up to date. It's great to be able to watch the trending across such a range of polls over such a long time. Lisiate ( talk) 02:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Big thanks seconded. an invaluable tool. User:Mistywindow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistywindow ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is fair to include a column for the Legalise Cannabis Party, especially if Progressives, Conservatives and Mana are included. Alcp are currently polling higher than UF or Mana and Progressives don't even exist anymore. Conservative is a one off, so under these criteria ALCP can be included otherwise it is a double standard. Anyone who doesn't think they should have a column on the table please justify it here coherently before removing the column. Otherwise a 3rd opinion will be sought. 118.90.92.253 ( talk) 23:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a compressed graph showing the last month of the campaign? This might show up trends that get lost in the long term series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.96.195 ( talk) 05:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, I have implemented a version of the script using a GAM (Generalised Additive Model) spline smoother. This is theory should be superior to a loess, because it chooses its "twitchiness" (great word, by the way) automatically. The problem is that it still doesn't respond to the most recent points, which, it seems are being reflected in multiple sources. Win some, lose some, I guess! We could also use this approach to correct for biases between surveys, which it seems is an important issue. For the moment I've left it out though-- Trevva ( talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
What about also including: "Phil Goff fails to respond to John Key's taunt of "show me the money" with regard to uncosted election promises." "700 National billboards are defaced by a group organised by a Green Party member closely linked to Russel Norman." But actually I argue that including any events in main campaign period is likely to become a flurry of events and policies of lessening importance. NPOV will be difficult to achieve. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great to see that you guys are into it already. I'll modify my graph script sometime in the next week or two, and then we're back into it again! Also, one suggestion - would it be an idea to add the most recent poll to the top of the table, so that this is the first thing you see? Or keep it so that it's at the bottom? Looking forward to working with you all again! -- Trevva ( talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So, it ended up being a bit more than a few days. But I finally managed to put a new version of the graph up there. I'm very open to suggestions for improvements etc if there's something else you'd like to see on it -- Trevva ( talk) 08:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there was a major change made to the date formatting style within the last month or so, so that "16 January - 21 January 2010" has been replaced with "16-21 January 2010". I agree that the result is more human readable, but it makes it less machine readable unfortunately, and has broken the R script. I'll see if I can make some mods in the next few days and get it working properly again -- Trevva ( talk) 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, first off, sorry total noob with discussion etiquette so sorry if this is not the appropriate place or not formatted correctly. What I have is a request. Under the main graph could we generate a graph with a much shorter timeline? Now we're close to the election I'm really interested to see week by week changes in polling. Perhaps 3 months before polling day would be a good start point. Obviously a graph with a shorter timeline will be less accurate and more prone to fluctuation, but with the current one I really struggle to see how the parties are doing with their campaigns. Thanks. Jonathan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.108.49 ( talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
"9 May 2011 – The "Zero Budget" is released, with $1.2b cuts to spending to help fund the rebuilding of Christchurch after the 22 February earthquake" The Chch earthquake only contributed to about 10% of the government's deficit I think this is pretty POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.117.138 ( talk) 09:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is the Horizon poll comparable to the others? It seems it asks a very different question (asking for preference in undecideds). More worryingly, it seems from the webpage that HorizonPoll has self-selection bias, and so is a poll of people interested in doing online polls for a chance to win an iPad, not a representative poll of all New Zealanders. It does some fiddly weighting for past preference, true, but is still a fundamentally different sample space. There are enough results from the (comparable) other polls, that the Horizon poll is a confusing factor in this list of polls; it does not track with other polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.148.210 ( talk) 00:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this poll looks odd. Polls on either side are consistant. Suggest it is treated with care, pending further investigation as to its methodology and philosophy.
They state:
METHODOLOGY NOTE:
Horizon party vote polling differs from other polls which telephone voters on landlines at random, and express decided voters as a percentage of 100 and do not weight results on 2008 party vote.
Horizon selects its respondents by e-mail to match the New Zealand population at the 2006 census. Respondent samples are further weighted by age, gender, ethnicity, personal income, region and party vote 2008 to provide a representative population sample aged 18+.
Party vote respondents are further filtered to exclude those not registered to vote and not intending to vote. Horizon also polls larger numbers of people than most other polls, in order to better indicate support for smaller parties, which have been vital in forming coalition governments under MMP.
What is interesting on its site is a table showing movement between what people voted for in 2008 with their preferences now. NealeFamily ( talk) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this poll is unreliable. Anyone can sign up online to be a part of the poll and they offer gifts to those that join. Even if it was reliable it distorts the graph because of its different methodology. It should be removed Sobitemybum ( talk) 07:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I would also agree with the consensus - if its a self-selecting poll, it probably shouldn't be in there. The fact that they get a result that is many stand deviations away from the others also suggests they're doing something "different" (bad different, not good different ;-) Shall we skip over it? -- Trevva ( talk) 09:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the Horizon polls is necessarily "bad different", but it is clearly incomparable, and so it needs to be analysed separately. Yes, Trevva - please skip over it. 203.173.244.240 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC).
Updated the figure to reflect the removed Horizon poll. -- Trevva ( talk) 07:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The polling average for National is superimposed on the graph legend. It needs fixing to make it easier to read. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have dipped my toe in to the R script and moved the legend to between the Greens and Labour. I hope its not too clunky. Mrfebruary ( talk) 07:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I knew this was going to be an issue at some point, but forgot about it. I have put a modified version of the script up on wikimedia so that it places the legend at the very bottom - hopefully this looks a little tidier. If you'd like to see some other changes/improvements, please just let me know... -- Trevva ( talk) 09:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Compliments on your script. It worked flawlessly in downloading and cleaning the data. Mrfebruary ( talk) 07:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The caption of the graph says that parties clearing the 5% threshold get included in the graph. NZ First, although polling low most of the time, has cleared the threshold twice. We need to either include NZ in the graph, or change the stated criteria for inclusion. Since the same criteria are used in the pages for the 2005 and 2008 elections, I think it would be best to include NZ First here. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Lcmortensen above. It would be great to see a seperate graph of the minor parties, expecially with the amount of interest they bring to the election. ----
I would commend Ridcully Jack on taking the initiative to add the graph of the smaller parties. However, having it as a thumbnail doesn't work out so well unfortunately - it tends to disappear behind the larger graph on my 1024x768 display. I see two alternatives: 1. make it a full size graph, on the same size as the other graph. 2. Combine the two figures into one, alternative layout. Here's an example of 2 that I test-drove around 2009... Alternative split graph design Variations on this theme are also possible. My vote goes for option 1. -- Trevva ( talk) 12:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added a new graph showing a comparison of the minor parties, following the above suggestion. The criteria I've used for inclusion is polling over 1% (but not consistently over 5%), which means a party has a chance of bringing a list MP into parliament if it should win an electorate seat. As it stands, JA's Progressives and Mana would not bring any list MPs into parliament should they win an electorate seat. (It's not clear that the Progressive Party is even contesting the 2011 election). In fact, parties need to get to (around) 1.5% to bring in a list MP on the strength of also winning an electorate, so setting the cutoff at 1% is probably generous, and it could be a little higher. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 02:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ridcully Jack. I'll have a look at the script and see what I can do to get Mana party in. Parsing the HTML is a bit of a nightmare, so its possible that there is something odd in there! -- Trevva ( talk) 10:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Mana is also working in the script now. I was a bit in doubt what to do with their polling before party creation, but decided to set it to NA (missing) rather than zero. New version of the script (see graph description) has the option to produce either a small parties graph, or a major parties graph -- Trevva ( talk) 19:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to follow up, I have included four parties in the small parties graph - ACT, NZ First, Mana and Maori. I was probably too generous including Mana, but anyway. United Future hasn't made it above 1.0%, so they're out. -- Trevva ( talk) 19:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any way the R code can be modified to use the meta colours for political party colours? Some of the colours are a bit off (especially the ones I've used); it would be nice to be able to use #F5E4BC style colour names. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 08:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is! R accepts hex colours, so I can just read them directly from the table... I'll look into it. -- Trevva ( talk) 12:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. The new version of the script (see the image description) uses the same meta colours as the table, and also takes the party names from there as well. -- Trevva ( talk) 19:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This row appears in the poll results:
31 July 2011 – New Zealand First announces at annual convention that it will repeal the anti-smacking legislation if elected to Parliament
Is this really noteworthy? Lots of political parties release policies, especially nearing elections. Either every policy announcement is notable (and you won't be able to find the poll data for the policy announcements) or policy announcements need to meet a relatively high standard of news-worthiness. Tax packages, budgets, by-elections, changes in leadership, expulsions, and controversies that might affect voter perceptions are valid inclusions. This seems not to be. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 10:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to have a clear list of what is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the poll results table. Since the table is primarily a record of polling, and not a record of politcal events, events which change the politcal landscape significantly should be included. At the moment, the table includes:
Also, we currently have some events which are less about the makeup of parliament and more about significant party platforms
It seems that deciding which policies get included is less clear-cut, and might need discussion. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully no one minds the inclusion of the Fairfax Media Research International polls. I have checked the criteria used to conduct the poll, and it is nearly identical to the four other polls - telephone poll of 1000 voters, and the question looks very similar to the one TV3 uses.
A bit high on the National figures compared to the others (then again, Fairfax isn't exactly politically neutral), but the minor parties are comparable. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 13:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the 2011 Tauranga oil spill is noteworthy for the table.
Any suggstions for how to neutrally describe the event? (POV will easily rear it's head when discussing government response, but it is possible that perceptions of the speed of the response will show in the polls). Ridcully Jack ( talk) 04:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the poll date be the date the poll is published or the date(s) that the poll was conducted? Since the difference is usually on a few days it probably isn't a huge problem. 115.188.243.92 ( talk) 20:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Some work may be needed to include another column for the Conservative Party. They poll at 1.1% in the latest Herald poll, significantly higher than some of the others in the table. Of course, this could be a one-off, but it will be interesting to see whether they also feature in tonight's TV One poll. If anyone with experience with wiki tables would like to add a column (if you think it should be added), I will try to get the R code sorted to include them in the minor parties graph. (Some fiddling similar to Mana's shortened trend line will be required, and Trevva, the originator of these lovely graphs, seems to have been away from Wikipedia since August). Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note of thanks to all the contributors keeping this page up to date. It's great to be able to watch the trending across such a range of polls over such a long time. Lisiate ( talk) 02:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Big thanks seconded. an invaluable tool. User:Mistywindow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistywindow ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is fair to include a column for the Legalise Cannabis Party, especially if Progressives, Conservatives and Mana are included. Alcp are currently polling higher than UF or Mana and Progressives don't even exist anymore. Conservative is a one off, so under these criteria ALCP can be included otherwise it is a double standard. Anyone who doesn't think they should have a column on the table please justify it here coherently before removing the column. Otherwise a 3rd opinion will be sought. 118.90.92.253 ( talk) 23:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get a compressed graph showing the last month of the campaign? This might show up trends that get lost in the long term series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.96.195 ( talk) 05:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, I have implemented a version of the script using a GAM (Generalised Additive Model) spline smoother. This is theory should be superior to a loess, because it chooses its "twitchiness" (great word, by the way) automatically. The problem is that it still doesn't respond to the most recent points, which, it seems are being reflected in multiple sources. Win some, lose some, I guess! We could also use this approach to correct for biases between surveys, which it seems is an important issue. For the moment I've left it out though-- Trevva ( talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
What about also including: "Phil Goff fails to respond to John Key's taunt of "show me the money" with regard to uncosted election promises." "700 National billboards are defaced by a group organised by a Green Party member closely linked to Russel Norman." But actually I argue that including any events in main campaign period is likely to become a flurry of events and policies of lessening importance. NPOV will be difficult to achieve. Ridcully Jack ( talk) 03:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)