More control for polls

[yvi]

Title:
More control for polls

Area:
polls

Summary:
Have more options and different behaviors when creating polls.

Description:
At the moment, you have three options for "Who can view individual responses in this poll?": Everyone, Access list, or just me.

I propose two changes:

a) no-one: show detailed results to not even the journal owner. I see that as helpful in the respect of being able to have 'anonymous polls' when you think people don't want to have anyone see what the clicked. Since the journal owner needs to set that and also can't change this after posting, I see no security concerns with this.

b) have a new drop-down "Who can view responses in this poll?" with a default setting of "everyone", but also the options of "access list" and "just me". This could control who can see how the overall results look, which is now *always* visible. This would be helpful for, for example, challenges and everything else where looking at the results might influence someone's vote. Could also just have "everyone" and "just me".

People who cannot view the results should get the graphics as though no-one had yet voted and a "you are not allowed to view the results of this poll" message.

"Who can view individual responses in this poll?" and "Who can view responses in this poll?" need to be connected in some way, of course so that you can't select "Everyone" for the first and "just me" for the second, which might give a false sense of privacy.

Poll #1013 More control for polls

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 35

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
25 (71.4%)

Should be implemented with changes.
3 (8.6%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (5.7%)

(I have no opinion)
4 (11.4%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.9%)

Comments

[azurelunatic]

I have the concern that unless this is uptaken by LJ and possibly passed on down the line to the LJ-clones, that people will then think more than they already do that the poll creator can't see details on their answers when it's "no one" on LJ. There's already a misconception to that effect floating around, and I only see it getting worse.

I'd have fewer misgivings if it were labeled "anonymous" or something of the like.

[yvi]

There's already a misconception to that effect floating around, and I only see it getting worse.

*nods* I think it's a wide-spread misconception, but I think that actually having some kind of anonymous level will help with that.

Maybe some renaming in the poll as well would help. Right now it says 'detailed results viewable to: none' when the journal owner can see it (I think?). That could then be changed to 'poll poster' and 'none' depending on the actual level.

Of course, we will never be able to force LJ to adapt that. That doesn't mean we can't make it better / easier to understand, though. I don't think it will result in any more confusion that the changes DW already has.

[turlough]

'detailed results viewable to: none' when the journal owner can see it (I think?)

It says 'viewable to: just me' actually, both here and on LJ. Unfortunately the text on the poll that other users will see still have 'none' on LJ (don't know what it says here I'm afraid).

[yvi]

Unfortunately the text on the poll that other users will see still have 'none' on LJ

That's actually the text I meant :) Both DW and LJ have that (just checked) and it's terribly misleading in my opinion.

[turlough]

That text really, really, REALLY need to be changed! Actually, I'm a bit suprised that no one has demandedsuggested that it should be changed long before this.

[triadruid]

You're right, this would fix that misconception, but probably only if the new text for 'poll poster only' and 'really, no really, nobody' is different from the current 'none'. :)

[triadruid]

Since polls can be reposted outside of the original entry (or at least they can on LJ), it's probably also worth considering adding Custom Filter to the dropdown, to mimic the original post's filtering.

[7rin]

Oooh. Yes, please. :)