I just got called by a robo-poll. I really think there should be a law that anyone who wants to call like this should be a real person and supply their home phone number. This sort of one-way contact is nothing more than harassment. As well as poisoning the well by reducing the inclination of people to participate in legitimate surveys.
Then we can’t get an unbiased sample…
Pollution of potential survey populations is a nice example of tragedy of the commons… now, how do we stop it?
Phone surveys are by themselves annoying. Person or Computer caller doesn’t matter.
I think we rely too much on surveys. Every time I a asked to fill one I am so annoyed that I’ll tick random responses mostly. And to think similar such surveys get so much weight in public policy.
And then there is that Pierre Poutine from the north
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/12/pierre-poutine-remains-in-hiding-as-rae-demands-robocall-royal-commission/
We live near Canada and so I’ve been following this on Canadian TV a bit.
In any case, the joke can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine
Maybe the numbers will avoid some of the cultural divide. ;-)
Robo-calls by the numbers
$162.10:How much it cost “Pierre Poutine” AKA “Pierre Jones” to launch the fraudulent robo-calls aimed at Guelph voters. The Alberta firm RackNine that was used to make the automated calls can make 200,000 calls an hour at 1.9 cents a call, court filings say.
6,738: The total number of phone numbers targeted on May 2, 2011 by the “Poutine” robo-calls. This includes a call to the unknown operative’s own cellphone. Most carried the 519 area code that is used by many numbers in Guelph.
7,676: The total number of attempted robo-calls (include repeated calls to the same number) made on May 2, 2011 by “Pierre Poutine.” This includes calls that did not go through.
10: The number of robo-call dialling campaigns from RackNine to electors in Guelph on behalf of the “Marty Burke Campaign.” Mr. Burke was the Conservative candidate for Guelph, and RackNine’s contact for these phone campaigns was deputy campaign manager Andrew Prescott. The 10 sets of calls were made between March 31 and May 2, 2011. The Burke campaign did not list these calls as expenses.
source http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shareTweet/article2379712/?service=mobile
“One-way contact” seems a very vague objection. Exactly what are you objecting to (?)
Suspect you have privacy concerns as the actual objection root.
If the robo-call contained a specific point of contact (organization/name/#) — then you would be entirely happy with the call and not consider it any form of harassment ?
If a real person with full identification showed up at your front door (unannounced) to survey you — you would eagerly cooperate… and not feel even slightly annoyed ?
Consider the true source of your discomfort.
Paterstrn:
No, my concern is different. It’s not about privacy, my concern with this sort of one-way contact is that it’s costless and riskless for the caller. They can bug me but I can’t bug them back, and they know this, so this removes one of their incentives to be considerate. If someone shows up at my door to do a survey, at least I can scream at them! Similarly, if the robocall gave me the organizer’s home number, I could have a robot him at home around bedtime, he can see how he likes it!
This is only because you don’t have a modern phone system. When I switched to voice over IP and was able to immediately and automatically send annoying repeat callers to an error message without ever even knowing that they called, I became MUCH happier with my phone experience.
Also my phone doesn’t ring after 8:15 pm and before 7:30 am. instead I get an instant message on my computer, have an opportunity to pick up the call by dialing an extension number, and if I don’t it goes to voice mail.
I guess the point is that the technological innovations that make robo-calling cheap and low risk also enables people to totally avoid robo-callers. I guess some statisticians should get to work on modeling the time evolution of the bias this induces, after all perhaps more educated people are more likely to have better phone technology for example.
I agree, and that is why if any candidate robo-calls me, I do not vote for them. I tell them this too….
Thats exactly what those (that fake Pierre) were counting on to bias a national election to their advantage.
Seems even worse than biased survey research…
Numerous studies, including the study of 2008 presidential primary polling by AAPOR, have found that IVR polls are actually quite accurate in predicting election results. You can only ask a few questions with them before getting drop offs so they’re less valuable for longer surveys, but that doesn’t mean they’re not legitimate research.
Alex:
They can be legitimate research while still being unethical.
As an Iowan, I am sympathetic to the problem. As a statistician, the thing that gets me is when the polls do not have an option for “I am of a different party than ____ candidate”, and then ask about important issues. Yes, abortion is one of the more important issues of the ones you just listed, but if I answer this question as such, you will make the opposite conclusion from what I am saying.
I tend to hang up when it’s evident that the poll isn’t designed to allow for a reasonable response. As someone who isn’t into survey stats, what is the most ethical way to do this? Do I respond normally, or just hang up? Or is screwing with someone else’s data ethical when the survey sucks that badly?
I think we rely too much on surveys. Every time I a asked to fill one I am so annoyed that I’ll tick random responses mostly.
“But the problem with torture is that ‘respondents’ will say whatever they think will stop the pain…” ;-P
Yes, I adopt a highly contrarian attitude because I so dislike them, but I’m surprised if people here would question the considerable use and growing reliance on surveys.