[Theforum] Changes to the VotingReqs document

[Elfur Logadóttir]

.| From: theforum On Behalf Of .jeff
.|
.| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
.| > the 'main' table stores result and *all* things related
.| > to it (including the userID) the other table is used
.| > *only* when the voting type is anonymous and then it
.| > *only* stores questionID and userID. this way we have
.| > the normal 'change your vote' thing, but have the
.| > possibility to use anonymous voting.
.| ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
.|
.| no, ick.  i hate the idea of having results stored in a
.| smattering of tables.  i hate the idea of having to decide
.| just prior to display of the results which table i'm going
.| to be querying to get those results.  i hate the idea of
.| having to know whether the vote is "anonymous" or not before
.| choosing which table to insert the user's selection into.

you're not selecting which one to insert the data into, you're inserting
the data into both of them when anonymous, but only one otherwise.
you then run another query only if the type is anonymous. i honestly
don't see the big issue your making off it.

.| what's more, the scenario you describe doesn't allow us to
.| restrict users from voting more than once -- something that
.| storing the userid accomplishes quite nicely.

why do you say that. the only difference i'm suggesting is that the same
info is stored in a place where the data can't be cross referenced with
my voting preference.

.| i think the integrity of the vote (ie, making sure there's
.| only one vote per
.| person) is far more important than the notion of anonymity.

i just can't see why you can't have both.
it is technically doable, that much i'm sure of.

i mean, if we're in the other corner talking about how great this
application would be when we upload it to sourceforge, why shouldn't we
include this one as well - leaving this as the ultimate voting thing for
all needs.

thanks
elfur