Especially for a poll with impoverished options, it’s constructive to add a Tx metadata message, particularly when voting “none of the above” to explain why and/or what missing choice one would have selected. I’ve also seen cases where this would make sense even with the canonical options (when not fitting the voter’s real desire), or to explain why the voter is abstaining.
Submitting the additional metadata with the voting transaction according to CIP-0020 will produce a readable message along with the vote. For our pool it looks like this: https://adastat.net/transactions/1bae9602d83afed055697105d3489ea84aa9cad32670e3d0b00b8eefa1aa4928
This was produced by using a metadata structure like this for our vote transaction (to submit without using the --json-metadata-detailed-schema option):
{
"94": {
"2": "0x96861fe7da8d45ba5db95071ed3889ed1412929f33610636c072a4b5ab550211",
"3": 5
},
"674": {
"msg": [
"The results of this poll can't be actionable as suggested for",
"Q3 2023 because all contemporary parameter options weren't",
"offered as choices. See CIP-0023 and Minimum VARIABLE Fee.",
"There need to be two more options like the following:",
"",
"X. K=500 and replace minPoolCost with minVariableFee of 5%.",
"Y. K=1000 and replace minPoolCost with minVariableFee of 5%.",
"",
"I would prefer Option Y, but the most important feature",
"is minVariableFee if you really want to run a fair poll.",
"Protocol support of Minimum VARIABLE Fee is 2 years overdue.",
"There is no point squabbling over big vs. small pool agendas",
"until this deficiency is fixed, which will decentralise stake",
"and future-proof the protocol against asset value fluctuations.",
"",
"For more details and discussion online:",
"https://forum.cardano.org/t/",
"entering-voltaire-poll-experiment-live-on-mainnet/117879/6"
]
}
}