MobileRead To see or not to see: 2012 Voting

[orlok]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Personally, it appears that votes have been much closer with the hidden option as more people are voting their heart rather than the lesser of two evils.

I think I agree with you, even though I voted for alternating, as I think it will be an interesting experiment to see just how different the results from each method are.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by orlok

I think I agree with you, even though I voted for alternating, as I think it will be an interesting experiment to see just how different the results from each method are.

We don't need to experiment. We already know. We know the results of an open vote aren't accurate. The first so many to push two or three books ahead end up picking what gets really voted on by others. We've seen this. We've even had some people tell us their votes can easily be influenced.

So why have open votes when we know the results are incorrect? We shouldn't. We've seen based on the two hidden votes that hidden votes are much more accurate.

So if you voted alternating just for the experiment (in the second poll), you can change to all hidden now that you know that open votes are a big fat fail.

[Billi]

Jon, maybe you're right that hidden votes are more accurate (for me personally not, my vote is not dependent on the score) but have they lead to more people reading the book or participating in the discussion thread? I would accept a (slightly) less accurate vote if it leads to more lively discussions in the voting and in the discussion thread. And for the liveliness of the voting thread hidden voting is a killer.

That's why I voted for alternating the kind of voting every month: to have an impression of the overall result - that is the accurateness of votes, the number of people actually reading the books, the number of people discussing the books.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We don't need to experiment. We already know. We know the results of an open vote aren't accurate. The first so many to push two or three books ahead end up picking what gets really voted on by others. We've seen this. We've even had some people tell us their votes can easily be influenced.

So why have open votes when we know the results are incorrect? We shouldn't. We've seen based on the two hidden votes that hidden votes are much more accurate.

So if you voted alternating just for the experiment (in the second poll), you can change to all hidden now that you know that open votes are a big fat fail.

There's no such thing as a correct or incorrect result. In open voting, some people may be swayed to vote a different way due to the recommendations given by others, or to ensure one of their preferences wins, but it isn't wrong, just different.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Thanks, Nyssa. As it stands, it looks like we'll be alternating from month to month unless more votes come in for hiding all votes until the polls close option. Personally, it appears that votes have been much closer with the hidden option as more people are voting their heart rather than the lesser of two evils.

I was fine with alternating, but then some how got my heart set on hidden. I'm not sure why. I do know that seeing the "17" in this poll made me happy.
Oh well.

As I stated in the December thread: I plan to make this book club a part of my 2012 reading challenge by reading all winners, as long as I can find them at reasonable prices for my Kindle.

I hope I have a better year next year than this one. I think I only participated in 4 discussions, with this month possibly being a 5th (I really don't know yet).

My biggest concern going forward are the personality conflicts that have arisen this year. I really do believe it has affected some of the votes overall (policy wise and book selections) and I'm hoping beyond hope that it will not happen next year.

I agree with sun surfer that we should try to handle all of our club process decisions this year and then have a moratorium on changes until at the very earliest 2013. Although, it would be great if we were happy with said changes and didn't really need to make anymore for a long while.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Thanks, Nyssa. As it stands, it looks like we'll be alternating from month to month unless more votes come in for hiding all votes until the polls close option. Personally, it appears that votes have been much closer with the hidden option as more people are voting their heart rather than the lesser of two evils.

We have a tie! 14 to 14!!

[WT Sharpe]

Sheesh!

[VioletVal]

How about we split the difference and make every third month's poll viewable?

[WT Sharpe]

My thoughts exactly. So in 2012, March, June, September, and December will be viewable, and the other eight months will be hidden. Then toward the end of next year, we can have another poll to determine if folks' feelings have changed.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by VioletVal

How about we split the difference and make every third month's poll viewable?

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

My thoughts exactly. So in 2012, March, June, September, and December will be viewable, and the other eight months will be hidden. Then toward the end of next year, we can have another poll to determine if folks' feelings have changed.

Excellent!

So with the new order (see Tom's post/approval here in the Administration: New years reading categories thread) : Thriller/Suspense, Classic #1, NonFiction & Classic #2 will be open.

Well, that's two items of discussion decided - categories & poll views - so what's next on the agenda?

[Nyssa]

Oh yes, Sun Surfer wanted to discuss Tiered Voting and a year long Moratorium on changes.

[Hamlet53]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Oh yes, Sun Surfer wanted to discuss Tiered Voting and a year long Moratorium on changes.

I am happy with the new monthly categories and the polling distribution (hidden vs. open) is fine as well. It seems that if the latter is to be accepted for 2012 that would leave the two tier voting off the table until 2013? There is also the issue of book nominations remotely matching the category for the month and/or how many times a year the same book may be nominated?

"year long Moratorium on changes" Yes, and set in concrete so that anyone who brings these issues up during 2012, well everyone can be sure that he/or she is just talking to themselves.

[WT Sharpe]

Yes to year-long moratorium on changes. I don't think we should enact any more changes until 2013. Although we may be voting on any changes later in the year, no changes will take effect until January 1, 2013.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I am happy with the new monthly categories and the polling distribution (hidden vs. open) is fine as well. It seems that if the latter is to be accepted for 2012 that would leave the two tier voting off the table until 2013? There is also the issue of book nominations remotely matching the category for the month and/or how many times a year the same book may be nominated?

"year long Moratorium on changes" Yes, and set in concrete so that anyone who brings these issues up during 2012, well everyone can be sure that he/or she is just talking to themselves.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Yes to year-long moratorium on changes. I don't think we should enact any more changes until 2013. Although we may be voting on any changes later in the year, no changes will take effect until January 1, 2013.

As I stated earlier, I also agree on the year-long moratorium.

Hamlet, I understand what your saying about leaving two tier voting until 2013, but I do not know if Sun Surfer was proposing the two tier voting regardless of the "open" vs "hidden" issue. She would have to make that decision, unless Tom wants it tabled. I don't mind either way, I just want everyone to be able to get their concerns out now, while we have still have 4 or 5 weeks left for discussions.

As to book nominations *shrug*. I think things got silly with that, and people in general were being snarky. I honestly believe that if a book is nominated "inappropriately" it will be ignored by the majority; as stated in my Storm Front in February/Romance example.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Yes to year-long moratorium on changes. I don't think we should enact any more changes until 2013. Although we may be voting on any changes later in the year, no changes will take effect until January 1, 2013.

I'm glad you like the moratorium idea; I thought you would!

However, I must wonder why we are not having a poll on tiered? There has been ample support for it over the months and here now (and probably would've been more support for it posted now if I'd posted the suggestion in a different thread and not a non-stickied thread on a closed poll that many members may not be reading any more).

After all, you did OK my bringing it up to see what the majority wants, and it did get support, but now you won't let us vote on it? We still have a few more weeks before the new year (really we have til the 20th of December which is when the new year threads start) to discuss it. Perhaps the votes would be against it, and that's fine, but then we'd know what the majority wants.