![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I can't help but notice that everytime I check out the graph on this website that All the major parties are about 1-2% higher than what they average out at, even the Lib/Dems considering the very low polls over the last week of 1%, failed to drag the graph line from around 9% when it should have averaged at around 5%. And then UKIP's results which should average out to a 2% increase has flatlined. Anyone can see from the results of the opinion polls that there are discrepancies. Is there some bias towards the pro EU stance with the way the table is formulated I wonder? RobHandford, 21:54, 1 June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhandford ( talk • contribs)
This has been the case even before the 21st May so whoever is updating the graph is not giving a true representation of the averages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhandford ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I made a significant change to layout which has been reverted with comment "Indeed the changes you have made are less reflective of the sources.", I don't understand what's meant by that. I wasn't surprised to see it reverted, or get objections...but I can't understand that one.
Current layout
Date(s) conducted |
Polling organisation/client | Sample size | Cons | Lab | Lib Dem | UKIP | <span | style="color:White;">Others]] | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10–11 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 2,157 | 34% | 36% | 6% | 14% | 9% | 2% | |
9–10 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,974 | 35% | 37% | 8% | 12% | 8% | 2% | |
8–9 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,685 | 31% | 37% | 7% | 15% | 10% | 6% | |
6–8 Jun | Lord Ashcroft | 1,003 | 28% | 32% | 8% | 17% | 15% | 4% | |
6–8 Jun | Populus | 2,039 | 35% | 36% | 9% | 14% | 7% | 1% |
My fiddling
Date(s) conducted |
Polling organisation/client | Sample size | Cons | Lab | Lib Dem | UKIP | <span | style="color:White;">Other Parties]] | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10–11 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 2,157 | 34% | 36% | 6% | 14% | 9% (Greens 5%, SNP / PC 2%, other 1%.) | 2% | |
9–10 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,974 | 35% | 37% | 8% | 12% | 8% (Greens 3%, SNP / PC 3%, BNP 1%, other 1%.) | 2% | |
8–9 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,685 | 31% | 37% | 7% | 15% | 10% (Greens 5%, SNP / PC 4%, other 1%.) | 6% | |
6–8 Jun | Lord Ashcroft | 1,003 | 28% | 32% | 8% | 17% | 15% (Including Greens on 7%.) | 4% | |
6–8 Jun | Populus | 2,039 | 35% | 36% | 9% | 14% | 7% (Greens 3%, SNP 3%, PC 1%, BNP 1%.) | 1% |
Iliekinfo ( talk) 19:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Giving these numbers are really just reporting what the sources say, so I'm not sure how listing all the parties are less reflective. Though, it's a question of notability vs. neutrality I guess, given that the numbers for the greens (except in the last few weeks) and nationalists are often not covered in newspaper articles describing the polls. There seems to be different viewpoints on what too include in opinion poll listings, and not really a set standard. Listings for the UK seem to be more on the "only include the largest parties" side. Personally I think it would be more fair to include the smaller parties as well if they are reported. It doesn't really hog up that much extra space, and would be a more neutral as opposed to having more arbitrary cutoff points as many articles seem to have. There was a discussion over at the EP election article about poll inclusion, and judging by it, Owl In The House (which reverted this change) is more on the side of parties should be notable to be included side. Given that there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus or consistency on this I don't know what would be most fair answer here. (There is also the issue that the polls are grouping the Green parties in E&W and Scotland together, even though they are two separate entities.) Øln ( talk) 20:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a line for 'others' to the graph?
At the moment the LDs seem to be losing support to the Greens, but just looking at the graph suggests the LDs loss is to UKIP alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.12.245 ( talk) 11:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I see people have been completing Green scores for the Lord Ashcroft polls. However I we should be careful what is published on the Wiki page. Until recently he was not giving a published score for them (I think 9 June is the first but in a comment above I note that he gave a comparison with the previous week, so in effect retrospectively publishing from the 2nd). I think it is a wrong to take the figures, as they have been, from a previous table clearly marked "THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE ADJUSTMENT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSERS". Where they are not included in his "published VI figures" table in the main data tables, or in the Summary, I don't think we should be including them. We just don't know how much the score may have changed following the "don't know/refuser" adjustment. I am not sure if a similar point can be made for other pollsters as I haven't yet had time to check. Saxmund ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice that a column for the Green Party has been quietly added to the polls for 2014 with very little discussion in the absence of a lot of editors, this is not on. We have set a clear precedent that we do not add columns at a drop of a hat because of any falsely created arbitrary criteria. The fact that the Green Party are regularly scoring over 5% or whatever else is of total irrelevance, grounds for inclusion are based on more long term trends observations and indeed coverage in reliable sources. When newspapers report opinion polls does the Greens figure get reported in the headline figures all or most of the time/more often than not? No, it does not. Does the BBC's opinion polling table include a Green column for general election polling? No it does not. Have the Greens been scoring above or within the margin of error of a party that does have its own column for a substantive trend defying period of time (ie passed the flash in the pan test)? No it has not.
I am removing the Greens from this table, therefore reverting the tables format back to the last (and therefore current) established consensus and base line. This is not to be changed until the consensus changes via a much broader discussion and unless consensus is reached among a much broader selection of editors. Owl In The House ( talk) 18:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A warning to 81.99.59.56: You are on very shacky ground here and you are showing a total disregard to Wiki policy, especially Assuming Good Faith, you have made some false and eronious accusations about myself and this is completely unacceptable and therefore your above comments should be completely disregarded. You must apologise for and retract your above remarks. Why are your comments false? You have picked one example of a discussion regarding an info box and taken it completely out of context, you also ignore all my other involvements when it comes to info boxes and UKIP etc. Indeed, for many many months I was consistently (all be it hesitantly) against adding UKIP to United Kingdom local elections, 2014, that is until the final weeks when I thought the evidence had become compelling and I made an evidence based case. It is all there for anyone to see on the talk page, I was actually part of the consensus against adding UKIP to the info box of that article for most of that discussion. Fact. If we look at the 2015 general election, I am on the fence as to whether UKIP should be added to the info box there or not, it is not a discussion I have taken much interest in as I feel there have been more pressing discussions. I do not make "partisan edits" that favour UKIP and I am not abusing any position as an editor, you must retract that accusation forthwith, you can't go round saying things like that. If anyone is demonstrating a partisan agenda, it is those making a very shaky and inconsistent case for giving a party or parties their own column in a table.
I have closed this discussion because I want you to retract the comments, not delete them. If you could retract your comments below this section, we can consider that an end to the matter. You cannot go round assuming bad faith and making provably false allegations against established editors. I hope we don't have to escalate this. Owl In The House ( talk) 10:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My take on the argument is this. The page originally started including the "significant" parties in national UK politics, for which there would have been a fair consensus in 2010, as UKIP had only gained 3% of the vote in the recent General election. At that time there happened to be three parties of national significance. At some point UKIP's vote increased to where it was polling at or above the LibDems' vote so it was included. That seems reasonable to me: to quote three parties and "others" is a clear implication that the "other" parties are less significant than the three being quoted individually, so if one of the "others" grows to equal or superior to one of those three, it should be included. Some posters think we have a policy of quoting the "Top 4" and therefore if the Greens are included, then one has to drop out. Not so, note that when UKIP was included there was no movement to leave out the LDs. There are a few good reasons for this. One is that it would mean deleting their data back to at least the beginning of that year, and then you might have to add them back in again if they go past UKIP again (as still might happen). Another is that we are starting to make judgments about who should and shouldn't be in, rather than letting the numbers decide it. I think it is an iterative process: you start with X parties, you may have to occasionally add one if it catches up with one of the other parties, you never delete one until the GE. For the GE 2020 page we decide again how many parties should be shown initially, based on GE votes. FWIW I think that as the Greens have shown since the EP elections that they are polling around the same level as the LDs in some polls (not all, Populus still have them on 3%) they have just about shown enough significance to be added to the 2014 table. However they probably haven't done it for a significant period of time yet so I am reasonably content to either include them or leave them out at the moment. Maybe we should set fixed criteria: eg, we will add them to the table if they are scoring equal to the LDs in at least 2 pollster's results by the start of the party conference season? Saxmund ( talk) 10:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I can't help but notice that everytime I check out the graph on this website that All the major parties are about 1-2% higher than what they average out at, even the Lib/Dems considering the very low polls over the last week of 1%, failed to drag the graph line from around 9% when it should have averaged at around 5%. And then UKIP's results which should average out to a 2% increase has flatlined. Anyone can see from the results of the opinion polls that there are discrepancies. Is there some bias towards the pro EU stance with the way the table is formulated I wonder? RobHandford, 21:54, 1 June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhandford ( talk • contribs)
This has been the case even before the 21st May so whoever is updating the graph is not giving a true representation of the averages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhandford ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I made a significant change to layout which has been reverted with comment "Indeed the changes you have made are less reflective of the sources.", I don't understand what's meant by that. I wasn't surprised to see it reverted, or get objections...but I can't understand that one.
Current layout
Date(s) conducted |
Polling organisation/client | Sample size | Cons | Lab | Lib Dem | UKIP | <span | style="color:White;">Others]] | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10–11 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 2,157 | 34% | 36% | 6% | 14% | 9% | 2% | |
9–10 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,974 | 35% | 37% | 8% | 12% | 8% | 2% | |
8–9 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,685 | 31% | 37% | 7% | 15% | 10% | 6% | |
6–8 Jun | Lord Ashcroft | 1,003 | 28% | 32% | 8% | 17% | 15% | 4% | |
6–8 Jun | Populus | 2,039 | 35% | 36% | 9% | 14% | 7% | 1% |
My fiddling
Date(s) conducted |
Polling organisation/client | Sample size | Cons | Lab | Lib Dem | UKIP | <span | style="color:White;">Other Parties]] | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10–11 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 2,157 | 34% | 36% | 6% | 14% | 9% (Greens 5%, SNP / PC 2%, other 1%.) | 2% | |
9–10 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,974 | 35% | 37% | 8% | 12% | 8% (Greens 3%, SNP / PC 3%, BNP 1%, other 1%.) | 2% | |
8–9 Jun | YouGov/The Sun | 1,685 | 31% | 37% | 7% | 15% | 10% (Greens 5%, SNP / PC 4%, other 1%.) | 6% | |
6–8 Jun | Lord Ashcroft | 1,003 | 28% | 32% | 8% | 17% | 15% (Including Greens on 7%.) | 4% | |
6–8 Jun | Populus | 2,039 | 35% | 36% | 9% | 14% | 7% (Greens 3%, SNP 3%, PC 1%, BNP 1%.) | 1% |
Iliekinfo ( talk) 19:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Giving these numbers are really just reporting what the sources say, so I'm not sure how listing all the parties are less reflective. Though, it's a question of notability vs. neutrality I guess, given that the numbers for the greens (except in the last few weeks) and nationalists are often not covered in newspaper articles describing the polls. There seems to be different viewpoints on what too include in opinion poll listings, and not really a set standard. Listings for the UK seem to be more on the "only include the largest parties" side. Personally I think it would be more fair to include the smaller parties as well if they are reported. It doesn't really hog up that much extra space, and would be a more neutral as opposed to having more arbitrary cutoff points as many articles seem to have. There was a discussion over at the EP election article about poll inclusion, and judging by it, Owl In The House (which reverted this change) is more on the side of parties should be notable to be included side. Given that there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus or consistency on this I don't know what would be most fair answer here. (There is also the issue that the polls are grouping the Green parties in E&W and Scotland together, even though they are two separate entities.) Øln ( talk) 20:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a line for 'others' to the graph?
At the moment the LDs seem to be losing support to the Greens, but just looking at the graph suggests the LDs loss is to UKIP alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.12.245 ( talk) 11:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I see people have been completing Green scores for the Lord Ashcroft polls. However I we should be careful what is published on the Wiki page. Until recently he was not giving a published score for them (I think 9 June is the first but in a comment above I note that he gave a comparison with the previous week, so in effect retrospectively publishing from the 2nd). I think it is a wrong to take the figures, as they have been, from a previous table clearly marked "THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE ADJUSTMENT FOR DON'T KNOW/REFUSERS". Where they are not included in his "published VI figures" table in the main data tables, or in the Summary, I don't think we should be including them. We just don't know how much the score may have changed following the "don't know/refuser" adjustment. I am not sure if a similar point can be made for other pollsters as I haven't yet had time to check. Saxmund ( talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice that a column for the Green Party has been quietly added to the polls for 2014 with very little discussion in the absence of a lot of editors, this is not on. We have set a clear precedent that we do not add columns at a drop of a hat because of any falsely created arbitrary criteria. The fact that the Green Party are regularly scoring over 5% or whatever else is of total irrelevance, grounds for inclusion are based on more long term trends observations and indeed coverage in reliable sources. When newspapers report opinion polls does the Greens figure get reported in the headline figures all or most of the time/more often than not? No, it does not. Does the BBC's opinion polling table include a Green column for general election polling? No it does not. Have the Greens been scoring above or within the margin of error of a party that does have its own column for a substantive trend defying period of time (ie passed the flash in the pan test)? No it has not.
I am removing the Greens from this table, therefore reverting the tables format back to the last (and therefore current) established consensus and base line. This is not to be changed until the consensus changes via a much broader discussion and unless consensus is reached among a much broader selection of editors. Owl In The House ( talk) 18:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A warning to 81.99.59.56: You are on very shacky ground here and you are showing a total disregard to Wiki policy, especially Assuming Good Faith, you have made some false and eronious accusations about myself and this is completely unacceptable and therefore your above comments should be completely disregarded. You must apologise for and retract your above remarks. Why are your comments false? You have picked one example of a discussion regarding an info box and taken it completely out of context, you also ignore all my other involvements when it comes to info boxes and UKIP etc. Indeed, for many many months I was consistently (all be it hesitantly) against adding UKIP to United Kingdom local elections, 2014, that is until the final weeks when I thought the evidence had become compelling and I made an evidence based case. It is all there for anyone to see on the talk page, I was actually part of the consensus against adding UKIP to the info box of that article for most of that discussion. Fact. If we look at the 2015 general election, I am on the fence as to whether UKIP should be added to the info box there or not, it is not a discussion I have taken much interest in as I feel there have been more pressing discussions. I do not make "partisan edits" that favour UKIP and I am not abusing any position as an editor, you must retract that accusation forthwith, you can't go round saying things like that. If anyone is demonstrating a partisan agenda, it is those making a very shaky and inconsistent case for giving a party or parties their own column in a table.
I have closed this discussion because I want you to retract the comments, not delete them. If you could retract your comments below this section, we can consider that an end to the matter. You cannot go round assuming bad faith and making provably false allegations against established editors. I hope we don't have to escalate this. Owl In The House ( talk) 10:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
My take on the argument is this. The page originally started including the "significant" parties in national UK politics, for which there would have been a fair consensus in 2010, as UKIP had only gained 3% of the vote in the recent General election. At that time there happened to be three parties of national significance. At some point UKIP's vote increased to where it was polling at or above the LibDems' vote so it was included. That seems reasonable to me: to quote three parties and "others" is a clear implication that the "other" parties are less significant than the three being quoted individually, so if one of the "others" grows to equal or superior to one of those three, it should be included. Some posters think we have a policy of quoting the "Top 4" and therefore if the Greens are included, then one has to drop out. Not so, note that when UKIP was included there was no movement to leave out the LDs. There are a few good reasons for this. One is that it would mean deleting their data back to at least the beginning of that year, and then you might have to add them back in again if they go past UKIP again (as still might happen). Another is that we are starting to make judgments about who should and shouldn't be in, rather than letting the numbers decide it. I think it is an iterative process: you start with X parties, you may have to occasionally add one if it catches up with one of the other parties, you never delete one until the GE. For the GE 2020 page we decide again how many parties should be shown initially, based on GE votes. FWIW I think that as the Greens have shown since the EP elections that they are polling around the same level as the LDs in some polls (not all, Populus still have them on 3%) they have just about shown enough significance to be added to the 2014 table. However they probably haven't done it for a significant period of time yet so I am reasonably content to either include them or leave them out at the moment. Maybe we should set fixed criteria: eg, we will add them to the table if they are scoring equal to the LDs in at least 2 pollster's results by the start of the party conference season? Saxmund ( talk) 10:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)