Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Releases Raw Election Polling Results

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the now-make-it-pretty dept.

Google 51

An anonymous reader writes "Last week, Nate Silver ranked Google Consumer Surveys as one of the most accurate polling firms of the 2012 US election. This week, Google has released the raw data that went into its election-day prediction, and is running a contest for interesting visualizations of that data. They provide a few examples of their own, including a WebGL globe view."

cancel ×

51 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The country is dead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053499)

Taxed and regulated to the ground. Good luck, idiots.

Re:The country is dead (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053583)

Except that's strictly a right-wing fantasy. Obama actually LOWERED taxes and CUT regulations.

Re:The country is dead (1, Informative)

flappinbooger (574405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053775)

Except that's strictly a right-wing fantasy. Obama actually LOWERED taxes and CUT regulations.

Psst, hey AC, better check this out...

Incomes are down: http://news.investors.com/092512-626958-household-income-down-82-under-president-obama.aspx [investors.com]

Obamacare regulations for 2013 are going to be less than optimal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2012/10/28/the-avalanche-of-new-obamacare-rules-will-come-in-january-2013/ [forbes.com]

Obama EPA regulations also sub-optimal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/04/epas-insanely-ambitious-agenda-if-obama-is-reelected/ [forbes.com]

Here's another tip- stop getting your news from NPR and MSNBC. that's a left wing fantasy.

Re:The country is dead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053903)

Straws... GRASP THEM!

Re:The country is dead (0)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054221)

Liberals make unsupported accusations...it's part of their strategy. Rhetoric alone can stop the conservatives [sarcasm] who are all racists who want to push grandma off the cliff anyways [/sarcasm].

Re:The country is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056393)

Posting links to conservative opinion pieces hardly counts as evidence of anything.

Re:The country is dead (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42061951)

Why you place that as a response to my posting? I made no reference to conservative "evidence" but if I were to make an argument for the post I think you meant to respond to I'd use some "official data" such as the data found on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf) that actually shows median weekly salary went up ~$30 from Q1 2009 to Q3 2012. Not sure if it was inflation-adjusted but who cares as this isn't my fight...

I think the general feeling for the Obama administration is one of trepidation because we really don't know what his plan is for the next four years. I'm hopeful we can stop with the class/race/sexual orientation/gender warfare and just fix things that need fixing...generally you start with the most important things, not legalizing weed, legalizing same sex marriage, etc. Fix the big things first then, right before we self-actualize, we can focus on all the other issues of the day but you don't focus on the quality of your beer when your house is burning, you put out the fire first.

Re:The country is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054165)

Except that's strictly a right-wing fantasy. Obama actually LOWERED taxes and CUT regulations.

Psst, hey AC, better check this out...

Incomes are down: http://news.investors.com/092512-626958-household-income-down-82-under-president-obama.aspx [investors.com]

Obamacare regulations for 2013 are going to be less than optimal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2012/10/28/the-avalanche-of-new-obamacare-rules-will-come-in-january-2013/ [forbes.com]

Obama EPA regulations also sub-optimal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/04/epas-insanely-ambitious-agenda-if-obama-is-reelected/ [forbes.com]

Here's another tip- stop getting your news from NPR and MSNBC. that's a left wing fantasy.

OK, even if we assume that those are all 100% accurate, WTF do any of those have to do with whether taxes are higher or lower? Here's a hint: NOTHING!!!!

Re:The country is dead (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054493)

NPR is only a liberal news organization in comparison to conservative news (Fox).

Re:The country is dead (0)

flappinbooger (574405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054593)

NPR is only a liberal news organization in comparison to conservative news (Fox).

lol I have NPR as the radio station that plays on my clock radio in the morning as my alarm. Either that or country, something annoying.

Re:The country is dead (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056413)

NPR is a bit left of center. Anything not far-right can be called "liberal" by a die-hard republican.

NPR is Establishment Radio (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057673)

A while back I filled out one of those surveys about "where do you get your news?" I checked "Conservative Talk Radio", and gave my local NPR station as the station.

They're not "Crazy Right-Wing Talk Radio", they're Establishment Radio, which is conservative in the more traditional sense. If there's a government position on something, they may examine it from multiple sides, but it'll be based on the government's framing of the questions, with the presumption that that's an appropriate framing to use. "Where will we find Iraq's WMDs?" "Which countries really belong in the Axis of Evil?"

A year or so ago I heard an NPR news station use the word "torture" - and except for Terry Gross's interviews with people, I hadn't heard them use that word since we learned about Gitmo. They'd say "harsh interrogation" or "enhanced interrogation" because those were the Administration's politically correct terms, but they didn't have the guts to say "torture" when everybody knew what it was.

Re:The country is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056139)

My income went up this year by 3% and my bonus was increased from 15% of my salary to 16%. My health care costs also went down but I assume that was mostly due to the company I work for changing providers from Aetna to Blue Cross Blue Shield.

I am looking forward to the Affordable Heath Care Act being fully implemented by the end of 2013.

Additional EPA regulations to protect our environment is a good thing. We all breathe the same air and share the same water. It is a government's role to protect those shared resources.

Re:The country is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058915)

Mine has gone up 18% since 2008 and my bonus has gone from 10% to 20%. And that's before I even consider stock options that became worth something when my company was acquired and the additional stock grants as part of the retention program.

I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but my answer to Mitt's question is, "Yes, I'm a hell of a lot better off than I was 4 years ago."

Re:The country is dead (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058531)

NPR is the only news source that's actually rational. I suggest you listen to how the conduct interview with politician, regardless os letter, as well as how well the investigate their stories.

I'm sorry facts and research make you angry.

Companies who let people go are bringing people back to those same position for less money.
Shocking revelation you got there~

I love data. Lots of data. I enjoy reading federal reports. I love compiling, cutting and looking at patterns in data. It's what I do, and I do andf I do it very well.

My decision are based on data, facts, numbers, and history.
The Forbes links? missing tons of relevant data.
and it's all based around a false premise.
Ever notice people say 'recovery isn't fast enough' but never compare it to anything else? You can't say fast enough without some measure to make the judgement.
However, if you look at other countries, and US's history of recovery, the current recovery is pretty much the fastest ever.
But you won't here that from anti-Obama site and pundits. They'll just say not 'fast enough' as if it has meaning.

The saddest thing to happen to this country is that now 'facts' are liberal.

Re:The country is dead (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059077)

Ever notice people say 'recovery isn't fast enough' but never compare it to anything else? You can't say fast enough without some measure to make the judgement.
However, if you look at other countries, and US's history of recovery, the current recovery is pretty much the fastest ever.

Pretty much fastest ever? Not quite, see link below. Recovery is very slow by comparison to other recoveries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-economic-recovery-2012-8?op=1 [businessinsider.com]

Re:The country is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053923)

Our company had open enrollment for our medical benefits this month. For the first time in awhile, the costs went up SIGNIFICANTLY.

Irrelevant if it's lowered in one area and raised in another (and, so far, I don't see any examples of my taxes being any lower whatsoever in the last few years).

Re:The country is dead (1)

e. boaz (67350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054171)

My company had open enrollment for all benefits this month... our premiums for medical insurance went down and our coverage went up.

What does anecdotal evidence prove? Nothing by itself.

Re:The country is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054605)

Good for you.

My premiums went down a little bit.

My deductible went up from $600 to $9,000.

Every company in my field has done the same thing. So watch out, your Hope and Change is coming.

Re:The country is dead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054285)

Our company had open enrollment for our medical benefits this month. For the first time in awhile, the costs went up SIGNIFICANTLY.

Irrelevant if it's lowered in one area and raised in another (and, so far, I don't see any examples of my taxes being any lower whatsoever in the last few years).

Well guess what. We had our open enrollment a few weeks ago too. Guess how much mine went up? 4%. And if you include the employer paid portion, overall it's up 6%. That's about on par with previous years. So if Obamacare is responsible for these SIGNIFICANT increases, how come I'm not seeing them? I'll give you the answer. It's one of 2 things. Either your employer/insurer is using Obamacare as a convenient excuse to take a piss on you and jack up rates, or your previous "coverage" was piss poor and now you've actually got to pay a little more to get coverage that actually covers stuff. The former is not the fault of Obamacare. The latter is, but I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing.

Re:The country is dead (2)

Jon_S (15368) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054591)

Our company had open enrollment for our medical benefits this month. For the first time in awhile, the costs went up SIGNIFICANTLY.

Irrelevant if it's lowered in one area and raised in another (and, so far, I don't see any examples of my taxes being any lower whatsoever in the last few years).

Well guess what. We had our open enrollment a few weeks ago too. Guess how much mine went up? 4%. And if you include the employer paid portion, overall it's up 6%. That's about on par with previous years. So if Obamacare is responsible for these SIGNIFICANT increases, how come I'm not seeing them? I'll give you the answer. It's one of 2 things. Either your employer/insurer is using Obamacare as a convenient excuse to take a piss on you and jack up rates, or your previous "coverage" was piss poor and now you've actually got to pay a little more to get coverage that actually covers stuff. The former is not the fault of Obamacare. The latter is, but I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing.

Where I work (a very large national engineering firm), they made it clear that the only part of the increase in rates this year attributable to Obamacare was for some increased women's preventive services (yes, including contraception). There really aren't that many other aspects of Obamacare that impinge on employer-provided health insurance (requiring coverage for dependents up to 26 y.o. is another - that went into effect last year). That was how Obamacare was designed - it had minimal impact on people who are already getting their insurance through their employers. In fact, not going for a single payer system is why it is so unpopular among liberals.

Now there may be more next year [nytimes.com] but blaming an increase this year on Obamacare is nonsense. Premiums went up where I work, but that was almost entirely attributable to increase use of medical services over the last year, requiring an increase in premiums.

And as for the GP's claim of no lower taxes over the last few years, it must be great making over $250K a year. (Federal) taxes for everyone else when down.

Re:The country is dead (1)

GoatCheez (1226876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055345)

My rates went down, and my deductible went down slightly. They even included a pamphlet highlighting the changes and why it's thanks to "Obamacare".

Re:The country is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054665)

Except that's strictly a right-wing fantasy. Obama actually LOWERED taxes and CUT regulations.

I keep hearing he lowered taxes... but I don't see any more money in my paycheck! How did he miss me!!

Re:The country is dead (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056245)

Payroll taxes were cut from 6% to 4%, back in '09 I think. They're due to expire next year. The Bush tax cuts were extended but they've been in place since before Obama took office. Now, my local taxes have been going up, as state and county have been trying to make up loss of federal funding but that's due to cutting the federal budget.

Re:The country is dead (1)

Jon_S (15368) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057691)

Payroll taxes were cut from 6% to 4%, back in '09 I think. They're due to expire next year. The Bush tax cuts were extended but they've been in place since before Obama took office.

About 30% of Obama's stimulus bill was tax cuts. [politifact.com] . From the linked page:

Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.

Been interesting if (4, Interesting)

transporter_ii (986545) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053703)

It would have been more interesting if the "Who do you want to win the US Presidential Election?" question had allowed for *any* candidate to be entered. I didn't want either of the two running to win. In fact, it is kind of a rip that only a handful of states actually count write-in votes.

This is part of the reason that the one-party system has a stranglehold on America because it craftily marginalizes decenters.

Re:Been interesting if (0)

TheLink (130905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053765)

It would have been more interesting if Google's financial arm used its data...

Think of the stock predictions you could make when you have access to so many people's emails and search data. Sure some data and predictions would be wrong, but if you have some safeguards I think they could make a lot of money.

Of course that would be bad PR if they were caught doing that :).

Re:Been interesting if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053771)

It is not about you!

Re:Been interesting if (1)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053843)

I take it you meant "dissenters"?

I'm not from the US, but it's interesting to notice how out in the middle of nowhere, there were a lot of Romney voters. In areas with denser population, there were a lot more Obama voters.

Re:Been interesting if (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053959)

In areas with denser population, there were a lot more Obama voters.

You got the "denser" right. In the midwest we actually help each other and hold each other accountable. Our states are also not going bankrupt and haven't had to put "nanny" laws on the books to keep you from buying too much soda. We also immediately help each other during disasters and don't wait for the government to swoop in to save us. I know my neighbors down the road and we honor and respect our traditions. Social networks here involve actually taking to people in person. The coasts call us the "flyover states". I say "keep flying".

Re:Been interesting if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054319)

In areas with denser population, there were a lot more Obama voters.

You got the "denser" right. In the midwest we actually help each other and hold each other accountable. Our states are also not going bankrupt and haven't had to put "nanny" laws on the books to keep you from buying too much soda. We also immediately help each other during disasters and don't wait for the government to swoop in to save us. I know my neighbors down the road and we honor and respect our traditions. Social networks here involve actually taking to people in person. The coasts call us the "flyover states". I say "keep flying".

And that's why you are on slashdot, posting as an AC, right?

Re:Been interesting if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056471)

Our states are also not going bankrupt and haven't had to put "nanny" laws on the books to keep you from buying too much soda

Right, no nanny laws, midwest states are great for buying liquor on Sunday. Which states don't even let you buy regular beer? Or car dealerships being open saturday and sunday. Or being gay. Oh yeah, and if you don't rely on the fed as much as coastal states then why do you take more federal dollars than you give. Blue states pay more in than they get back. That's right, all of that government spending benefits the midwest. BTW I live in the midwest and it cracks me up that people making $30,000 think they're middle class.

Re:Been interesting if (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056561)

In the midwest we actually help each other and hold each other accountable.

True.

Our states are also not going bankrupt

Illinois isn't in the midwest? We're in worse shape than California.

and haven't had to put "nanny" laws on the books

Anti-pot laws are nanny state laws, and the only two state that have legalized reefer aren't in the midwest. Your soda example doesn't stop you from drinking as much soda as you want, and IINM New York City is the only place with that particular law.

We also immediately help each other during disasters and don't wait for the government to swoop in to save us.

Yes, we help each other during emergencies, but it looked from TV like those caught in Sandy were doing the same. And if you don't think Oklahoma, Missouri, and other midwestern states didn't accept FEMA help after tornados, you're not paying attention.

The rest of your comment was just meaningless lip flapping.

But There Was a Third Option on the Poll (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053937)

I didn't want either of the two running to win.

From the survey details [google.com] they had three target answers:

"Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan, the Republicans" or "Barack Obama / Joe Biden, the Democrats" or "Third party candidate / Undecided"

It sounds like you would have answered "Third party candidate / Undecided"

This is part of the reason that the one-party system has a stranglehold on America because it craftily marginalizes decenters.

Hey you leave my centers out of this :-) But in all seriousness, this is about an election poll ... you should have been out campaigning for Gary Johnson or whoever you wanted a long time ago. I think that campaign finances are the root of the problem that we should attack but apparently you are just upset that some Google Survey didn't allow everyone to write in specific names? An that's what's marginalizing third party candidates? A little late at that point.

Re:But There Was a Third Option on the Poll (1)

The_Noid (28819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055809)

I think that campaign finances are the root of the problem that we should attack...

Actually, it's the "winner takes all" setup that causes the two-party system. There is only 1 presidential position to distribute, meaning people will only vote for one of the two candidates that actually stand a chance of winning.

Re:But There Was a Third Option on the Poll (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059063)

Actually, it's the "winner takes all" setup that causes the two-party system.

True, but...

There is only 1 presidential position to distribute, meaning people will only vote for one of the two candidates that actually stand a chance of winning.

This isn't really the reason there is a two-party system in the US. Lots of systems with a President elected directly or (as in the US) indirectly using have multiparty systems. The main reason the US doesn't is that single-winner contests using either plurality or majority-runoff elections are also used for elections to both houses of Congress and for most State elections in the US. Legislative election systems have far more influence on the party systems of modern democracies than the election systems used for chief executives.

Re:Been interesting if (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054953)

"Scientific" polls used for the debates should not be asking "Who will you vote for?". Even if they have a multiple choice response. That is a question to predict the outcome of the election. Which is a valid poll. However for the debates, it should be "Without consideration of voting for the best candidate, A, with a chance to defeat the candidate, B, you like less than A, who would you vote for?"

You would see a lot more people with polling numbers at 10%+. You might get up to 4. Then other candidates would be given the chance of being heard. Shortly thereafter, the polls would probably go back to 2 candidates, but maybe not the usual 2.

Google's Election Results showed multi-party (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057723)

Google's Election Results map would show you either two-candidate or multi-candidate results. Sometimes you had to click to get the multi-candidate results, but it was all there, so you could see the percentages that went to Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, other third-party and independent candidates. Getting the details for Congress was a bit tougher, because they did a better job of visuals for the President, Senate, and Governor than for the 438 district races, but the results were there.

Getting real "Percent Reporting" numbers (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42057813)

I did find the "Percent Reporting" numbers to be frustratingly misleading, though, and that's not just the fault of Google; the California Secretary of State website had similar issues. The problem is that, while they can say "X% of Precincts Reporting", that doesn't actually tell you vote counts in jurisdictions that allow absentee ballots, voting by mail, or other slow-to-count voting methods. So for instance, some of the California races for US Congress took a week to finish counting, even though they had 100% of the precincts reporting by Wednesday noon or so. (And they were close enough races that the counts mattered, and the absentee ballots could hypothetically change the winner.)

Now they can come after the opposition. (3, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053803)

I know I am pissing into the wind in asking people to call their senators and congressmen and voice your opposition to the new bill that gives the government warrantless, suspicionless access to your email and anything you store in the cloud, like your google docs.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/ [cnet.com]

Once government can read all of your email (not just what you leave on GMail longer than 6 months) on a whim without suspicion, they'll be able to come after all of their opposition.

"Oh no, they'll never do that," or, "oh, that'll never happen to ME." Lots of Jews said stuff like that in the 30's.

Just wait.

Re:Now they can come after the opposition. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053875)

Once they can read it without suspicion or any human interaction, they will write a script that reads everyone's email in order to find troublesome people why may not toe the party line. How can that go wrong?

Re:Now they can come after the opposition. (0)

iserlohn (49556) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053943)

Aggregated data is a tool, just like guns. You can do both good and evil with it. It's just that in the general populace of a functional modern society, you can do a lot more good with widely available aggregated data than with widely available firearms.

Re:Now they can come after the opposition. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054199)

A Gas Chamber is a tool, just like guns. You can do both good and evil with it. It's just that in the general populace of a functional modern society, you can do a lot more good with widely available Gas Chambers than with widely available firearms.

Stop spouting off opinions without at least backing them up.

Re:Now they can come after the opposition. (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056179)

I know I am pissing into the wind in asking people to call their senators and congressmen and voice your opposition to the new bill that gives the government warrantless, suspicionless access to your email and anything you store in the cloud, like your google docs.

I think you missed the follow-up
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/20/2122223/that-was-fast-leahy-drops-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill [slashdot.org]

Looks like the Prosecutors and Police aren't getting anything for Christmas this year.

Once government can read all of your email (not just what you leave on GMail longer than 6 months) on a whim without suspicion, they'll be able to come after all of their opposition.

They can already do that.
The bill just more people do the same thing

Re:Now they can come after the opposition. (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058579)

Well shit.

Heh...

It'll come up under the new Congress. Don't worry.

Re:Now they can come after the opposition. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056823)

The bill died already, it was in the news this morning.

License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053929)

I can't see any info on google's site about the license of this data. As a developer of software that presents statistical data, this would be nice. But I understand big G's reasons for making it ambiguous.

I would love to use the data, but without this information, I simply can't justify investing the effort.

WebGL Navigation (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053953)

My god, the navigator on their WebGL globe sucks so bad. Don't they know how to do an intersection test and move the surface as far as the mouse moves instead of some random distance? It's so clumsy...

Note the name of the Survey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054631)

Google Consumer Surveys.

Big corporations see us as nothing more than a source of data and, ergo, profits.

Don't do business with anyone that calls you a "consumer" rather than "customer".

Meanwhile, in Boston... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055643)

City of Boston November 2012 Presidential Election Results [cityofboston.gov] . Only three precincts reported less than 100% turnout. A great day for democracy!

It should be noted that in Boston, there are no Republicans; the city is owned lock, stock & barrel by Mayor Tom 'Mumbles' Menino. [mumblesmenino.us] Oh, and his party affiliation is (D), which is so often left out of summaries. "You Never Stumbles When You Votes for Mumbles"

Re:Meanwhile, in Boston... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42064223)

I presume you're insinuating corruption, because it's statistically improbable to receive 100% turnout in so many precincts. I mean, some voters are going to get into accidents, fall very ill, etc...

Oh wait, just saw the report. What. the. fuck? 140+% turnout? How can the feds *not* come down on this like a ton of bricks? Doesn't Boston deserve fair elections?

I'm probably going to use this as an argument for voter ID laws. Like for the rest of my life.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>