I’d say your letter saved us Nick. They would have found out anyway that we cheated, with tens of thousands of votes coming from about 50 computers, and your letter expressed that not all unicyclists are fraudulant and cheaters, though I must admit I worked the refresh button on the poll and voted about 50 times.
Maybe, they’ll put unicycling in the gravity games just because your so honest.
It is interesting, but I believe that in cases like this, once you send a letter, the recipient takes it as their own intellectual property. I learned this also the hard way, when I addressed a letter to a specific columnist in my local paper, but found that it appeared in the letters to the editor; it was slightly annoying because I included some personal information in reaction to some comments the writer had made, which I would not have provided if I had known it was going to be published.
I guess it’s caveat author. (I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t be author emptor. )
I knew that would work! I posted that the site didn’t work for me (which it didn’t), and then it suddenly did! Same hting happened for the Unicycling Gallery.
MURPHY’S LAW STRIKES AGAIN! (I think it’s called Murphy’s Law, anyway)
A commercial web site should know better than to post a poll that is so poorly written that you can vote multiple times just by hitting the browser refresh or by just going back to revisit the poll to see updated results. At a minimum they should write a cookie to keep track of people who have already voted. A cookie won’t prevent people from cheating, but it would make it more difficult than just hitting the browser refresh.
This is in no way an excuse for those who gleefully padded the poll. It is just an observation that their web development team have pathetic coding skills.