Talk:Automated telephone survey

Exasperation

Please explain why you have categorised this as spam? It contains no references to a company or to outside websites. Automated survey technology is part of this world!

• Well, it aggrandizes it pretty... grandiosely. And you linked to it 5 times in another article. And it seems you have a history of spamming :-( It just seems like it's promoting a product, or at least a type of product. Miltopia 11:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will reword and delete links. Thanks for feedback, you are doing a good job out there!

• This subject would get a keep from me at AFD. I've added some criticism and an academic source for NPOV. All we have to do is keep out the commercial links! :) --Mereda 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm ok with it now. I was just suspicious because the guy put 5 links to this article in another article. Miltopia 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep from me also and I agree, keep commercial tone and links off this article. Calltech 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed "less reliable" comment

The article cited in this comment [1] was about a pre-election poll taken in a specific Congressional campaign where the candidate (Republican Richard Pombo who was leading in conventional polls) did not agree with the poll and he and conventional pollsters both stated their distrust for this method. Both have a bias that certainly should be considered. Ironically, the automated poll got it right! It called the race a dead heat with a slight lean toward the Democratic candidate, who actually won the race [2]. Arguments cited against the automated poll were correctable within the design of the poll itself. This was achieved by obtaining further information from the polled individuals.

If anything, this cited article and the subsequent election result should be cited as a plug for automated surveys. :-) Calltech 14:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)