[Theforum] Changes to the VotingReqs document

.jeff jeff at members.evolt.org
Tue Feb 5 14:14:51 CST 2002


> From: Elfur Logadóttir
> . | 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.

ok, if i'm inserting the data into both tables when it's anonymous, how the
hell am i creating anonymity?  the data all still sits, complete with
userid, in the main table.  what's the purpose of the "anonymous votes"
table then?  answer, it has no purpose so it doesn't belong in the data

problem solved.

> . | 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.

that's not what you just said.  just because the presentation layer
conditionally pulls the data from the anonymous votes table for anonymous
votes doesn't mean there's nothing stopping someone with database access
from running the very same query against the main results table and getting
all the userids and their votes.

> . | 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.

if you're sure of it then you're not considering a crucial fact.  anonymity
and accountability are mutually exclusive.

> i mean, if we're in the other corner talking about how
> great this application would be when we upload it to
> sourceforge, [...]

i really don't give a rat's ass about sourceforge.  if we build this as a
part of w.e.o., this voting app will be available to those that want to use
it or learn from it.  i'm not building it specifically for sourceforge

> why shouldn't we include this one as well - leaving this
> as the ultimate voting thing for all needs.

because we're not building it for *all* needs.  we're building it for *our*
needs.  so far there simply hasn't been a compelling case for building in
this level of complexity (which won't actually guarantee anonymity anyway).



jeff at members.evolt.org

More information about the theforum mailing list