ZF and others Doctoring the JPR poll

I saw an advertisment for this survey and I did wonder how illogical it seems to ask for jews to respond to things via the internet. As we well know on this website, on the web anybody can pretend to be anybody, so how do JPR know they will actually receive opinions from Jews.

Having said that I will still do the survey. I suspected that organisations that support the right wing attitude would move forcibly to dominate the result.... Not by cheating, but simply by making sure that more of them answer.

So its ever more important to get a balanced, somewhat more rational pov across.

When "Hope Not Hate" encourages people to vote in elections in order to keep the BNP out, are they 'doctoring the Poll' too?

If not - what on earth is the difference between that and the ZF encouraging people to participate in this poll?

I suspect that any organisation whose views you disagree with would be accused by you of 'doctoring' when it encourages its supporters to participate in this poll.

It's certainly an unusual definition of 'doctoring'...

Ever so slightly disingenuous Hoffman. A more apt analogy is ballot-box stuffing. A vote is entirely different from a survey inasmuch as it is intended to get your candidates in to local or national government. JPR's survey is to gauge opinion about Israel and its effect on British Jews. If activists from one organisation or another gets its members to participate in the poll, this is doctoring and the results will be skewed. And as I wrote, who's to say that the anti-Zios won't be doing the same thing? They too read the JC, JN etc and have seen the adverts. Some might be on the JPR's mailing list. It thankfully isn't politically vetted.
In any event, the survey is compromised and meaningless because it is evidently self-selecting and allows any number of people to set up any number of email addresses with which they can register for the survey. It's not like other polls, where people -- a limited and countable sample -- are called up out of the blue to get their views.
Anyway, I've passed my views on to the JPR and IPsos/Mori after surveying early and surveying often. (Just joking, Hoffman. Jeez, I have a life).

I will be writing about this survey. I think self-selection is barmy. There is no way Ipsos-Mori can ensure (i) that only Jews over 18 resident in the UK respond (ii) that there are no multiple responses. However the results come out, there are huge question marks over this survey.

I am saying this now because if the results are hostile to Israel and I speak out then I will be accused of 'sour grapes'.

It is flawed whatever the outcome. It is such a shame that money is being spent by the Pears Foundation on a survey which is so methodologically suspect.

It could have been really valuable - if only the methodology had been sound.

It is definitely a tricky one Jonathan... I wonder why they chose to do it online....

Im guessing the alternative would be to do it through the synagogues and schools but I imagine the Foundation wanted to connect with Jews from all walks of life, possibly specifically those unconnected to the greater community. The internet is therefore the logical solution, but it does leave the system open to abuse.

I think the results will be interesting, and yes, it is probably somewhat flawed inherently, but as any student of sociology would tell you.... Surveys cannot help but be flawed anyway.

I think the solution is to have the survey but not allow the results to stifle debate. Dialogue must be employed alongside statistics and care must be taken to ensure the survey isn't seen as dogmatic 'proof' of the dominance of a particular school of thought.

Well, that appears to put paid to that little scam. To paraphrase the endings of Scooby-Doo, "If it weren't for those meddling whistle-blowers, we'd have got away with it,"

As Moshe wrote -- and I'm sorry for the cut and paste,

Well, that appears to put paid to that little scam. To paraphrase the endings of Scooby-Doo, "If it weren't for those meddling whistle-blowers, we'd have got away with it"