How Well Do Doodle Polls Do?

  • Danya Alrawi
  • Barbara M. Anthony
  • Christine ChungEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10046)


Web-based Doodle polls, where respondents indicate their availability for a collection of times provided by the poll initiator, are an increasingly common way of selecting a time for an event or meeting. Yet group dynamics can markedly influence an individual’s response, and thus the overall solution quality. Via theoretical worst-case analysis, we analyze certain common behaviors of Doodle poll respondents, including when participants are either more generous with or more protective of their time, showing that deviating from one’s “true availability” can have a substantial impact on the overall quality of the selected time. We show perhaps counter-intuitively that being more generous with your time can lead to inferior time slots being selected, and being more protective of your time can lead to superior time slots being selected. We also bound the improvement and degradation of outcome quality under both types of behaviors.


Social Welfare Time Slot Vote Behavior Strategic Vote Approval Vote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Arrow, K.J.: A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J. Polit. Econ. 58, 328–346 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brams, S.J., Fishburn, P.C.: Approval Voting. Birkhauser, Boston (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brams, S.J., Fishburn, P.C., Merrill, S.: The responsiveness of approval voting: comments on Saari and van Newenhizen. Public Choice 59(2), 121–131 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brânzei, S., Caragiannis, I., Morgenstern, J., Procaccia, A.D.: How bad is selfish voting? In: desJardins, M., Littman, M.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 14–18 July Bellevue, Washington, USA. AAAI Press (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laslier, J.-F.: The leader rule a model of strategic approval voting in a large electorate. J. Theoret. Polit. 21(1), 113–136 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lehtinen, A.: The welfare consequences of strategic behaviour under approval and plurality voting. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 24(3), 688–704 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mackenzie, D.: Making sense out of consensus. SIAM News, Philadelphia (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meehl, P.E.: The selfish voter paradox and the thrown-away vote argument. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 71(01), 11–30 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mosier, J.N., Tammaro, S.G.: When are group scheduling tools useful? Comput. Support. Coop. Work 6(1), 53–70 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myerson, R.B., Weber, R.J.: A theory of voting equilibria. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87(1), 102–114 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obraztsova, S., Elkind, E., Polukarov, M., Rabinovich, Z.: Doodle poll games. AGT@IJCAI (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palen, L.: Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 1999, pp. 17–24. ACM, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reinecke, K., Nguyen, M.K., Bernstein, A., Näf, M., Gajos, K.Z.: Doodle around the world: online scheduling behavior reflects cultural differences in time perception and group decision-making. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2013, pp. 45–54. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riker, W.H., Ordeshook, P.C.: A theory of the calculus of voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 62(01), 25–42 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saari, D.G., Van Newenhizen, J.: Is approval voting an ‘unmitigated evil’? A response to brams, fishburn, and merrill. Public Choice 59(2), 133–147 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thayer, A., Bietz, M.J., Derthick, K., Lee, C.P.: I love you, let’s share calendars: calendar sharing as relationship work. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2012, pp. 749–758. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber, R.J.: Approval voting. J. Econ. Perspect. 9(1), 39–49 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xu, C.: Making doodle obsolete: applying auction mechanisms to meeting scheduling. Bachelor’s thesis, Harvard University (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zou, J., Meir, R., Parkes, D.: Strategic voting behavior in doodle polls. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2015, pp. 464–472. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danya Alrawi
    • 1
  • Barbara M. Anthony
    • 2
  • Christine Chung
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceConnecticut CollegeNew LondonUSA
  2. 2.Math and Computer Science DepartmentSouthwestern UniversityGeorgetownUSA

Personalised recommendations