What influences how you set your stirrup length?

ester said:
Which was based around an accusation of implied affiliation which I cannot see as being implied at all.
Click to expand...

Well I didn't think there was applied affiliation, but I did read it twice as subconsciously read the word 'university' in there when it wasn't. Why did my brain do this? Well because 1)why would you state your geographical location when asking for survey responses? 2)Cambridge is well known for its university so there's word association 3)his colleagues names appear next to universities
 
In my experience the good doctor does tend to get a bit hysterical about those who question his motivation and ethics

It's not just here although it is good for a bit of a bait if there's nowt else to do
 
It's nice to know the pedanticness and eye for detail comes in useful for something. So far this week it is has only produced disappointment for everyone else (telling the boss there was a whole lot done wrong previously).
 
If this survey had an appropriate information/informed consent page at the front of the survey (such as the guidelines laid out here: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/Research/Research-ethics/Guidelines-for-informed-consent/) a lot of the questions raised in this thread would not have been necessary.

Really annoys me when I see a questionnaire survey without it, at any level - be it undergraduate, postgraduate or higher. In my experience, a peer-reviewer would automatically raise that as an issue for publication. Personally, I'd automatically reject it for a peer-reviewed journal without even looking at the results if the relevant contact details, affiliations and ethics committee were not clearly defined, with the scope of the survey, on the first page. Perhaps others may be kinder.
 
Last edited:
That is very true and I do agree, I am used to reading full information and ethics sheets totalling a good A4 or more with the ones I am usually doing although I did wonder if that is because they are targetted at a 'vulnerable' group. Interesting to know that it is more standard than that though.
 
numptynoelle said:
If this survey had an appropriate information/informed consent page at the front of the survey (such as the guidelines laid out here: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/Research/Research-ethics/Guidelines-for-informed-consent/) a lot of the questions raised in this thread would not have been necessary.

Really annoys me when I see a questionnaire survey without it, at any level - be it undergraduate, postgraduate or higher. In my experience, a peer-reviewer would automatically raise that as an issue for publication.
Click to expand...

Dr David doesn't like the idea of peer review, especially if it's of one of his commercial neutriceutical 'studies'...the idea that a sample of 24 horses could yield a statistically valid result.....don't get me started
 
Frumpoon said:
In my experience the good doctor does tend to get a bit hysterical about those who question his motivation and ethics

It's not just here although it is good for a bit of a bait if there's nowt else to do
Click to expand...

well the weather has been pants here today....
 
ester said:
That is very true and I do agree, I am used to reading full information and ethics sheets totalling a good A4 or more with the ones I am usually doing although I did wonder if that is because they are targetted at a 'vulnerable' group. Interesting to know that it is more standard than that though.
Click to expand...

The information in the link I posted is definitely the minimum information I would expect to see (across 'proper' sciences and social sciences), but sadly many supervisors of undergraduates don't tell them this in the knowledge that their study is unlikely to be published beyond a dissertation, and maybe mentioned in future grant applications. Or perhaps the supervisors themselves are a bit naive about it too. When there's the lure of fast, easy data through surveymonkey and the like, and tight deadlines for dissertations, I can almost sympathise. Then, if/when the undergrads go on to do more research, it comes as a bit of a shock how much groundwork a survey actually requires.
 
Last edited:
DabDab said:
Don't think there was a problem with the survey (other than it being repetitive and a slightly odd set of question/angle) until the good Dr jumped down a poster's throat for having the nerve to ask the motivation for it with a condescending 'don't you know who I am' speech.

If you can't/don't want to say anymore than the information already given then why not just politely say that.
Click to expand...

This. I was was geniunely going to answer the survey, before the Dr's response to another forum member.

I don't care how' prestigious' someone is if they can't be polite.
 
Cortez said:
Gosh, what a grumpy lot. Compared with a lot of the idiotic, amateurish surveys that come up on here all the time this one was quite succinct. I've no idea why they want this particular set of data, and I don't really care TBH: if they can use my input, I'm happy to provide it. If you don't want to answer the man's survey, just go do something else.
Click to expand...

thank you.
 
numptynoelle said:
If this survey had an appropriate information/informed consent page at the front of the survey (such as the guidelines laid out here: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/Research/Research-ethics/Guidelines-for-informed-consent/) a lot of the questions raised in this thread would not have been necessary.

Really annoys me when I see a questionnaire survey without it, at any level - be it undergraduate, postgraduate or higher. In my experience, a peer-reviewer would automatically raise that as an issue for publication. Personally, I'd automatically reject it for a peer-reviewed journal without even looking at the results if the relevant contact details, affiliations and ethics committee were not clearly defined, with the scope of the survey, on the first page. Perhaps others may be kinder.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that where the surveys are anonymous, as the current one being discussed is, the requirements are very different. No data that identifies anyone is being collected.
 
Oh the joys of forums where people can hide behind their pseudonyms and be aggressive and act in a way they would not have the courage to do in real life. I believe its called "trolling". You will note that I am not hiding behind a pseudonym on this forum.

I am sure you will be disappointed to hear that we have over 1300 responses, which is way above our calculations needed for the number to achieve something meaningful. As to the reasons for the survey, as some of you seem very annoyed or upset that this wasn't declared upfront, certain surveys can be invalidated by explaining the purpose in advance as this can lead to priming and bias.

Thank you to those who have made positive comments.

The thread has served its purpose and for me at least its now closed. You are of course at liberty to continue to discuss this but I wont be viewing further comments.

Best Wishes and enjoy the rest of the weekend

David
 
Well, I missed out on this one yesterday. I did complete the survey, and could have had some comments at the end, but it was so repetitive that I did not. There was missing that I have known a couple of horses where I ride with odd stirrups, and yes, they do tend to have hock issues or similar that were under treatment, and have altered saddles etc too.

I have also known people with injuries where a leg draws up with spasm, and to feel balanced they too have ridden odd until the issue is addressed.

I was surprised by the altering stirrups because you horse has a bad back too. Maybe I would be shorter initially on a horse that is cold backed, but once warmed up would lengthen them again.

There were a couple of other things too, but after ticking all the boxes I was rather glazed over.

The comments by Dr whoever are what has baffled me the most. The most successful posters take critique well, thanking people for their point of view. The surveys that value you also say that they will update the thread once the research is complete, at least with regards to what they were looking for.

I DID think Doctor Do Dah was part of Cambridge University. The way it was set out kind of lead that way.

I wonder if he was having a bad day? The question seemed reasonable. Touched a raw nerve? Whatever, the thread is officially not closed, and, as invited, I am going to go and enjoy the rest of my weekend!
 
Dr David Marlin said:
Oh the joys of forums where people can hide behind their pseudonyms and be aggressive and act in a way they would not have the courage to do in real life. I believe its called "trolling". You will note that I am not hiding behind a pseudonym on this forum.

I am sure you will be disappointed to hear that we have over 1300 responses, which is way above our calculations needed for the number to achieve something meaningful. As to the reasons for the survey, as some of you seem very annoyed or upset that this wasn't declared upfront, certain surveys can be invalidated by explaining the purpose in advance as this can lead to priming and bias.

Thank you to those who have made positive comments.

The thread has served its purpose and for me at least its now closed. You are of course at liberty to continue to discuss this but I wont be viewing further comments.

Best Wishes and enjoy the rest of the weekend

David
Click to expand...

My name is Caroline Trayes. Whether my weekend is good or not will depend on whether my team win at Wembley later. Must go, got a train to catch.




PS house sitter is in place Mr Burglar!
 
Dr David Marlin said:
Oh the joys of forums where people can hide behind their pseudonyms and be aggressive and act in a way they would not have the courage to do in real life. I believe its called "trolling". You will note that I am not hiding behind a pseudonym on this forum.

I am sure you will be disappointed to hear that we have over 1300 responses, which is way above our calculations needed for the number to achieve something meaningful. As to the reasons for the survey, as some of you seem very annoyed or upset that this wasn't declared upfront, certain surveys can be invalidated by explaining the purpose in advance as this can lead to priming and bias.

Thank you to those who have made positive comments.

The thread has served its purpose and for me at least its now closed. You are of course at liberty to continue to discuss this but I wont be viewing further comments.

Best Wishes and enjoy the rest of the weekend

David
Click to expand...

Wow what a dreadful attitude OP.

I am off to stick some false data into your survey. Since it needs us to be anonymous and that makes us all trolls you'll be expecting that anyway.
 
Survey completed, but I would question how useful the dressage results will be?

I compete unaffiliated at prelim level, but could only tick one option so ticked unaffiliated, I wonder how many folk would tick only prelim in this instance? Devalues the question I felt, there is a big difference in levels of abilities from intro to advanced medium which can all be done at unaffiliated comps.
 
I think I need to go back and look at the survey again - I read the question about a bad back as the rider having a sore back, not the horse.....
 
Red-1 said:
Well, I missed out on this one yesterday. I did complete the survey, and could have had some comments at the end, but it was so repetitive that I did not. There was missing that I have known a couple of horses where I ride with odd stirrups, and yes, they do tend to have hock issues or similar that were under treatment, and have altered saddles etc too.

I have also known people with injuries where a leg draws up with spasm, and to feel balanced they too have ridden odd until the issue is addressed.

I was surprised by the altering stirrups because you horse has a bad back too. Maybe I would be shorter initially on a horse that is cold backed, but once warmed up would lengthen them again.

There were a couple of other things too, but after ticking all the boxes I was rather glazed over.

The comments by Dr whoever are what has baffled me the most. The most successful posters take critique well, thanking people for their point of view. The surveys that value you also say that they will update the thread once the research is complete, at least with regards to what they were looking for.

I DID think Doctor Do Dah was part of Cambridge University. The way it was set out kind of lead that way.

I wonder if he was having a bad day? The question seemed reasonable. Touched a raw nerve? Whatever, the thread is officially not closed, and, as invited, I am going to go and enjoy the rest of my weekend!
Click to expand...


Not having a bad day because he's posted today with snidey comments too. I also assumed attachment to the university (not that I'm bothered what he's attached or not attached to) because the way the list of people is set out it lists 2 of them apparently as their home location and the rest as their college location, making the first 2 look like a college location too.

It's just that on this forum anything remotely dodgy looking / untrue raises peoples suspicions. If it weren't for the actual survey and that some posters appear to know of this person, I'd assume it was a troll post, judging by Dr Marlin's responses, I mean there's even a flounce at the end :D together with an attempt to shut down the thread, not what you'd expect from a professional. Especially the bit about hiding behind keyboards and being trolls, that's so childish, why do people who've been called out on their behaviour assume that nobody would be brave enough to say it to their face? If he was stood in front of me I's say exactly the same, and I can't be the only one. Talk about how to imprint your name in people's memories for all the wrong reasons.

And why on earth does Dr Marlin think that people who don't like his attitude would want his survey to fail? So strange.
 
I haven't seen this much willy waving since an early episode of Eurotrash...and that was always disappointing too!

I'm not talking about David.

I don't know David well, I have spoken to him a few times and his pursuit of bettering the care for our horses us to be applauded, not questioned.
Has he bitten and lost a little professional cool? Maybe, but he's also read the same crap that I just have and it's hard not to bite when your integrity is being called into question.

Can we question surveys? Of course. Can we criticise them? Of course. Look back to the first page and a half of this thread and everyone accusing David of being unable to take criticism on board...go to specsavers! He did take comments well and respinded well. He's only responded in a different manner to people whose being here I don't really understand other than just to be inflammatory and give themselves a high five for arguing with one of the most respected equine scientists in the world.

One thing that stood out most to me when talking to David was him saying, "All equine prifessionals need to be mindful that we don't always have the answers and we don't always know it all". He genuinely believes that and I wish more people shared this belief.

As for any comments about David has responded...are all people to be expected to be polished and perfect at all times, totally infallible and without fault? Of course not. None of us are.

I'd far rather a twot be good at his job and help our horses than be a skilled communicator who lacks the time to do his job properly.
 
and his pursuit of bettering the care for our horses us to be applauded, not questioned.
Click to expand...

Thankfully no-one, however great, good, famous or perfect they are, is above being politely questioned.

So many surveys are undertaken simply to provide PR for commercial companies on publication. It is essential, these days, to know who research is being funded by, and why, in order to know how much credence to give it. Especially if it is not, as seems to be in this case, going to be peer reviewed.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
Thankfully no-one, however great, good, famous or prefect they are is above being politely questioned.
Click to expand...

Did you totally miss my part about the first page and a half where David responded perfectly well and gratefully, to constructive criticism.
 
I don't think there was anything impolite about the post which made David throw his toys out of his pram. And if he found it was impolite, it certainly didn't justify threatening libel laws!
 
Most people who post surveys on here come across very well and most members try to help them, even if the survey isn't particularly well constructed.

Threatening libel laws just doesn't encourage a warm fuzzy feeling.
 
Dr David Marlin said:
Dear GirlFriday

Perhaps you would like to identify yourself rather than post unfounded accusations from behind a pseudonym?

I put Cambridge UK as that is where I live. I'm representing myself. If I wanted to use an academic affiliation I would use Oklahoma State University where I hold the position of Professor of Physiology. I guess by implying that I have a commercial interest in this research that you are also implying that I am misleading my colleagues, Hilary, Charlotte, Melissa and Jane as they are certainly not aware of any commercial angle on this survey?

I have been supervising Charlotte and Melissa for the past year to help them establish themselves in an area of research. I am in the fortunate position of being able to fund a lot of my own research these days.

If your aim was to try and derail the survey then you are way too late.

Please do consider when making comments like this the UK laws on defamation,

Regards

David Marlin
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, that was rude and uncalled for
 
Dr David Marlin said:
Oh the joys of forums where people can hide behind their pseudonyms and be aggressive and act in a way they would not have the courage to do in real life. I believe its called "trolling". You will note that I am not hiding behind a pseudonym on this forum.

I am sure you will be disappointed to hear that we have over 1300 responses, which is way above our calculations needed for the number to achieve something meaningful. As to the reasons for the survey, as some of you seem very annoyed or upset that this wasn't declared upfront, certain surveys can be invalidated by explaining the purpose in advance as this can lead to priming and bias.

Thank you to those who have made positive comments.

The thread has served its purpose and for me at least its now closed. You are of course at liberty to continue to discuss this but I wont be viewing further comments.

Best Wishes and enjoy the rest of the weekend

David
Click to expand...
This has gone from willy waving (by the good doc) to toddler tantrum! This is quite hilarious now. Doc is now accusing long standing HHO members of trolling.

Doc, you are best out of HHO, you don't seem to quite get us.

Best of luck with your study (whoever the heck is the prime driver).
 
Tiddlypom said:
This has gone from willy waving (by the good doc) to toddler tantrum! This is quite hilarious now. Doc is now accusing long standing HHO members of trolling.

Doc, you are best out of HHO, you don't seem to quite get us.

Best of luck with your study (whoever the heck is the prime driver).
Click to expand...


I think he may be more used to Facebook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top