Is "parodying" overreactions more annoying than overreaction itself?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

While it's true that this forum has a tendency to greatly overreact and overplay every little movement in polls and things like that, "ironically" posting things like "OMG DEMS GAINED A POINT IN THIS POLL, THEY'LL OBVIOUSLY WIN 400 HOUSE SEATS!" is now far more common, and does nothing to lessen the issue.

(I'm referring mostly to the NYTimes live polling thread, which is chock full of this stuff and yet has as far as I can see no one legitimately making a fuss about huge swings in polls with a double digit number of respondents.)

[DINGO Joe]

That thread is only slightly better than watching a hog be butchered and turned into sausage.  I don't know what the NY Times was thinking.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That thread is only slightly better than watching a hog be butchered and turned into sausage.  I don't know what the NY Times was thinking.

The NY Times even says on there not to take polls seriously while the respondents are still low. It's not their fault some people have to keep beating a dead horse.

[DINGO Joe]

That thread is only slightly better than watching a hog be butchered and turned into sausage.  I don't know what the NY Times was thinking.

The NY Times even says on there not to take polls seriously while the respondents are still low. It's not their fault some people have to keep beating a dead horse.

I think the NY Times knows exactly how people would react.  May as well have a disclaimer on a reality show saying the people are all trainwrecks, don't watch, just wait for the outcome.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I understand why people overreact to small shifts in poll numbers.  They are extremely vested in their candidate/party and view it as the end of the world if that candidate loses.  That's the lot of a partisan.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You can't pay me to go in that thread, but that has been a major problem on this forum for quite some time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You can't pay me to go in that thread, but that has been a major problem on this forum for quite some time.

As early as 2008, we had a problem with every poll thread that showed Obama ahead (in states like Virginia) with blue avatars trolling it up by screaming things like "OMG OBAMA IS GOING TO WIN IDAHO NOW!" in response to a few stupid overconfident prediction maps by hackish red avatars.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If someone is in fact being silly with this, the best things to do in order are: 1-ignore them since virtually no one takes those posters seriously anyway and 2-debunk them and show why they are wrong. Fighting stupid with stupid accomplishes nothing but exponentially more stupid being spread.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Aren’t you beating a dead horse by asking a slightly different iteration of this question every week?

He does have a point, though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aren’t you beating a dead horse by asking a slightly different iteration of this question every week?

Seeing as how this sort of spam is still very common, its not a dead horse.

[Fight for Trump]

Aren’t you beating a dead horse by asking a slightly different iteration of this question every week?

Seeing as how this sort of spam is still very common, its not a dead horse.

You're right, it's a fossilized horse.

[kyc0705]

Its effect is about equal. It all feeds into a near-impenetrable onslaught of noise that contributes nothing and makes useful analysis and discussion harder to find. 

[Xing]

(I'm referring mostly to the NYTimes live polling thread, which is chock full of this stuff and yet has as far as I can see no one legitimately making a fuss about huge swings in polls with a double digit number of respondents.)

Well, if you read the entire thread, you'll see that you're kind of wrong about that.

If people don't like the NYTimes polls or the thread, the solution is easy. Don't bother looking at either.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

(I'm referring mostly to the NYTimes live polling thread, which is chock full of this stuff and yet has as far as I can see no one legitimately making a fuss about huge swings in polls with a double digit number of respondents.)

Well, if you read the entire thread, you'll see that you're kind of wrong about that.

If people don't like the NYTimes polls or the thread, the solution is easy. Don't bother looking at either.

Well if people are in fact doing that it makes more sense to simply point that out and call them stupid rather than constantly spam the thread with "jokes" about such swings that do nothing to quell the stupid overreactions and just make the thread more junk and unreadable.

As far as not bothering looking at the thread, I actually like polls and the idea here (even if there are suspect things about the methodology), so it seems kind of unfair to not be able to follow it because I don't think having to read something along the lines of "OMG 400 SAFE R SEATS -> 400 SAFE D SEATS" every page is the most hilarious thing ever.

[Xing]

(I'm referring mostly to the NYTimes live polling thread, which is chock full of this stuff and yet has as far as I can see no one legitimately making a fuss about huge swings in polls with a double digit number of respondents.)

Well, if you read the entire thread, you'll see that you're kind of wrong about that.

If people don't like the NYTimes polls or the thread, the solution is easy. Don't bother looking at either.

Well if people are in fact doing that it makes more sense to simply point that out and call them stupid rather than constantly spam the thread with "jokes" about such swings that do nothing to quell the stupid overreactions and just make the thread more junk and unreadable.

As far as not bothering looking at the thread, I actually like polls and the idea here (even if there are suspect things about the methodology), so it seems kind of unfair to not be able to follow it because I don't think having to read something along the lines of "OMG 400 SAFE R SEATS -> 400 SAFE D SEATS" every page is the most hilarious thing ever.

Then why not actually say something in the thread itself along those lines? I get that making polls like this is one of your favorite pastimes, but maybe posting something about the polls themselves in the thread would be more effective.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

(I'm referring mostly to the NYTimes live polling thread, which is chock full of this stuff and yet has as far as I can see no one legitimately making a fuss about huge swings in polls with a double digit number of respondents.)

Well, if you read the entire thread, you'll see that you're kind of wrong about that.

If people don't like the NYTimes polls or the thread, the solution is easy. Don't bother looking at either.

Well if people are in fact doing that it makes more sense to simply point that out and call them stupid rather than constantly spam the thread with "jokes" about such swings that do nothing to quell the stupid overreactions and just make the thread more junk and unreadable.

As far as not bothering looking at the thread, I actually like polls and the idea here (even if there are suspect things about the methodology), so it seems kind of unfair to not be able to follow it because I don't think having to read something along the lines of "OMG 400 SAFE R SEATS -> 400 SAFE D SEATS" every page is the most hilarious thing ever.

Then why not actually say something in the thread itself along those lines? I get that making polls like this is one of your favorite pastimes, but maybe posting something about the polls themselves in the thread would be more effective.

Multiple other people have made that point in that thread.