Adding new search criteria? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

Adding new search criteria?


I want Pro-Dommes segrigated from Lifestyle Dommes.
  21% (10)
I really don't think anything needs to change, my search is going well
  21% (10)
I don't use the search feature and don't care
  8% (4)
I don't want one more citeria to have to fill out
  10% (5)
I think other search criteria should be added too!
  10% (5)
I think this is a dumb ass poll, but have fun!
  6% (3)
What's it matter? Nothing is going to change.
  21% (10)


Total Votes : 47
(last vote on : 12/15/2010 10:10:40 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message

BoiJen -> Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 4:31:14 PM)

Let's roll with it and see what happens.



dbloomer -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 4:53:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Let's roll with it and see what happens.


I'm curious about your choice to include 6 ways to say "no" and only 1 way to say "yes".



BoiJen -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 4:54:16 PM)

actually, one of the options is "I think other search criteria should be added too!" Try not to be so narrow.



lizi -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 4:55:31 PM)

Meh, doesn't matter to me if it's added or not. I think if it were added the only change would be that instead of people coming to the boards to complain about the lack of a pro category, they'll complain about why don't the pros use the pro category. It won't actually cut down on the total amount of whining by those who are disgruntled in their search.

The results of this poll will most likely be skewed anyway if those voting in favor of one option or another have many sockpuppet profiles to register multiple votes for the same person.



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 5:00:21 PM)

Hell, yeah.  While you're about it, add a RELATIONSHIP checkbox so I can automatically eliminate those who are already in one from searches. 



pogo4pres -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 5:21:50 PM)

I seem to recall this topic being done in a different thread, and the OP getting berated badly, not that it was not deserved.   Every kink site on the net has both pro & lifestyle Domme's on them, it isn't going to change unless we can change every culture of the world to allow men to be openly submissive, (like THAT will ever happen), and even were it to happen I doubt the "need" for "professional domination"  would end.  

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.



LadyPact -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 5:22:10 PM)

While most folks know My opinion from the other thread, My vote was not wanting more criteria to fill out.



Aylee -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 7:01:11 PM)

I rarely read profiles or even look at them.  About the only time I do is when someone says something on a thread and I am trying to figure out where they are or how old they are. 

I do not use the search function unless I am going to send a c-mail to someone.  So I just do not really care. 



kinkbound -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 7:22:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dbloomer


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Let's roll with it and see what happens.


I'm curious about your choice to include 6 ways to say "no" and only 1 way to say "yes".


I agree. The poll is skewed to produce a predictably unfavorable outcome for your position.

There should only be 2 or 3 choices:

1) I want a search function choice for ProDommes
2) I do NOT want a search function choice for ProDommes
3) I don't care either way. (optional)



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 7:31:53 PM)

Meh. Like the filipino lesbian money doms would actually use the right criteria?



kinkbound -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/3/2010 7:36:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

Meh. Like the filipino lesbian money doms would actually use the right criteria?


Irrelevant.

The poll I suggested is not about technicals. It's about who supports or does not support a conceptual idea.



myotherself -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 12:57:41 AM)

I clicked on 'I think other search criteria should be added too'.

I just waded through the other trainwreck thread, and my head is spinning!

I automatically ignore messages from guys whose profiles whine on about 'fakes and wannabes' or who have posted on the messageboards using a level of fuckwittery that sometimes leaves me breathless with wonder (and not in a good way).

Wading through profiles and postings wastes my precious time - there should be a box which says "I'm the kind of guy/gal who bitches and moans and is generally a really, really negative person". Then I could ignore them and move on to the guys who matter. [8|]

edited for typo



EbonyWood -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 1:17:13 AM)

I would like a criteria to separate small furry creatures and cute mammals from non cute reptilian life forms, please.



myotherself -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 1:54:29 AM)

awesome idea, EW! [:D]



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 2:08:03 AM)

As the secretary of the local chapter of PFAAB (Parents and Friends of Anteaters and Bunnies) I can't decide if this is progress, as in allowing small fluffies to shout their identities from the rooftops, or discrimination, as in genus-profiling.



realwhiteknight -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 2:40:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

I would like a criteria to separate small furry creatures and cute mammals from non cute reptilian life forms, please.


Won't that hurt raptorjesus' feelings? I would feel bad since earlier I threatened him with Lucifer's minions in order to protect Jeff Goldblum from evisceration. I haven't apologized yet. [&o]



EbonyWood -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 3:06:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbloomer


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Let's roll with it and see what happens.


I'm curious about your choice to include 6 ways to say "no" and only 1 way to say "yes".


False.

There is 1 directly positive choice, 1 directly negative choice, 1 proposing further additions, 1 proposing no further additions, and 3 choices of abstention (from making  a committed choice either way).
 
There are therefore 2 ways to support the addition, either specifically or as part of a set, and 2 ways to not support it, either specifically or part of a set.
 
You are assuming abstention implies a selection. It is exactly the opposite, an act of neutrality and indifference.
 
The smart money is on indifference. Of course there is no accounting for the sock puppet vote.



BoiJen -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 7:34:26 AM)

Thank you, for explaining the difference between the selections to the dense.

If you have a suggestion for added selection, please, let me know.

boi



BoiJen -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 11:22:59 AM)

Scratch that...
currently in no particular order...

total votes: 43

(positive votes) more search criteria including separate sections for pro, etc.: 13
(negative votes) no changes, please: 14
(neutral votes) everybody else: 16

Assuming that all votes are legit (shut up sock puppets), those desperately desiring a change in search criteria fall in last, with less than a 1/3 of the vote.

Let's round up and 1/3. 33% is in no way an overwhelming majority seeking change to an established structure. 33% is not enough for ANY company or entity to justify potential overhauls that may incur added expense.

boi



juliaoceania -> RE: Adding new search criteria? (8/4/2010 11:29:20 AM)

I want "bottom" "top" added to orientation. I am soooo tired of dominants emailing me that I am not a submissive... it is the closest thing that is appropriate for me to check, and yet at times I have wished I could have just listed myself as a bottom so they would leave me the fuck alone about the entire thing



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125