MobileRead January's *Category* Nominations.

[JSWolf]

I'd like to nominate Free-for-All for January. I think we need at least one month like that and January seems like a good month for this.

[John F]

Will the voting be visible in the voting threads for categories. I vote yes.

[WT Sharpe]

I hadn't planned to make the categories votes hidden, but that reminds me that soon we're going to have to vote for hidden or open for the 2013 monthly choices. I think we've all had enough time to get a feel for each.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I hadn't planned to make the categories votes hidden, but that reminds me that soon we're going to have to vote for hidden or open for the 2013 monthly choices. I think we've all had enough time to get a feel for each.

I find that the hidden votes give the best results. So we should do it for all 12 months. I feel the book that wins is the book that deserves to win. It's not based on parrotism or who voted for what or how many votes a book has. It works and it's fair. We have people who have admitted to saying they don't vote for what they want because they prefer to be a lemming.

[WT Sharpe]

That would be my preference as well, Jon, but we'll see how it goes. I have no desire to do another mixed year; that has proven to be more confusing than I anticipated. John F started a discussion on it in the Discussion/Suggestion thread.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We have people who have admitted to saying they don't vote for what they want because they prefer to be a lemming.

Lemme fix that:

We have people who vote for their second choice because they'd rather read that than their last choice. Or, more likely, end up not participating at all that month.

MUCH better.

I admit it; I'm irritated when people use "fair" and "best" as shorthand for "what I prefer, but I can't come up with a good justification, so I'll use a loaded word instead."

[WT Sharpe]

I knew things would get fun when Jon joined the discussion!

[Format C:]

I second "Thriller"
I third "Science Fiction"

And I'd like to have a category for "Books originally written in Non-English languages", or simply "Rest of the World".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

Lemme fix that:

We have people who vote for their second choice because they'd rather read that than their last choice. Or, more likely, end up not participating at all that month.

MUCH better.

I admit it; I'm irritated when people use "fair" and "best" as shorthand for "what I prefer, but I can't come up with a good justification, so I'll use a loaded word instead."

The idea of the vote is to vote for what the individuals (us) wants to read most. It should not be based on who else voted for what or how many voted for what. It should be based on interest. If I am interested in a specific book more then the rest, the fact of who has voted for what or how many votes a book has should not matter. I should just vote for the book that interests me the most. Now because some have admitted to voting lemming style, we have hidden votes. Given the results of the hidden votes vs the open votes, I feel that the hidden votes give the truest results since lemming votes are almost non-existent given that we cannot see what's been voted for until the vote is over. Fair and best are not loaded words. Given that we have enough proof, we can see that hidden voting is the best and fairest way to do it. If you can prove that open voting will not give us lemming votes and is the best and fairest way to vote, I'm happen to listen.

[Nyssa]

While I dissagree with Jon's word choice, his point is valid. There have been people who have said, flat out, that they have altered their votes becuase of who has voted, not what was voted. Personally, I feel that those individuals are doing a disservice to the rest of us.

As to voting for 2nd choice instead of last, I believe that the run-off poll has helped in that respect.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

As to voting for 2nd choice instead of last, I believe that the run-off poll has helped in that respect.

I was against the run-off poll when it was first decided upon. Since then, I have changed my mind and feel it's OK to have.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I second "Thriller"
I third "Science Fiction"

And I'd like to have a category for "Books originally written in Non-English languages", or simply "Rest of the World".

The second for Thriller and the nomination of Books originally written in Non-English languages added, but it's purely academic, as your third of Science Fiction makes 7 fully nominated books and therefore the poll will open shortly.

For February, is 7 too few? Should it be 10 as with the books?

EDIT: Hold the presses! Science Fiction only has 2 nominations. Did you mean to third Sci-Fi and Fantasy?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The idea of the vote is to vote for what the individuals (us) wants to read most. It should not be based on who else voted for what or how many voted for what. It should be based on interest. If I am interested in a specific book more then the rest, the fact of who has voted for what or how many votes a book has should not matter. I should just vote for the book that interests me the most. Now because some have admitted to voting lemming style, we have hidden votes. Given the results of the hidden votes vs the open votes, I feel that the hidden votes give the truest results since lemming votes are almost non-existent given that we cannot see what's been voted for until the vote is over. Fair and best are not loaded words. Given that we have enough proof, we can see that hidden voting is the best and fairest way to do it. If you can prove that open voting will not give us lemming votes and is the best and fairest way to vote, I'm happen to listen.

This is purest gobbledygook.

Where, exactly, is your proof? I'd like to see your analysis of the results of open voting vs. closed, taking into account the timing of open votes, as well as the statistics on the spread between voting choices, including the margin of error.

Without an explication of your proof, it's not proved. Yet again, it ain't so just because it suits your purposes to claim it.

As an aside, "lemming" is a loaded word. People can vote for whatever reason they want, price, likelihood of winning and even because they tend to agree with the taste of a prior voter.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by issybird

This is purest gobbledygook.

Where, exactly, is your proof? I'd like to see your analysis of the results of open voting vs. closed, taking into account the timing of open votes, as well as the statistics on the spread between voting choices, including the margin of error.

Without an explication of your proof, it's not proved. Yet again, it ain't so just because it suits your purposes to claim it.

As an aside, "lemming" is a loaded word. People can vote for whatever reason they want, price, likelihood of winning and even because they tend to agree with the taste of a prior voter.

you are the one who said that my use of "best" and "fair" are loaded words. So I feel it is up to you to prove your point/disprove mine. "Lemming" is not a loaded word. We have already had people say that they vote based on the votes of others. That would be a lemming vote. The idea is to vote for what a person most wants to read. With a hidden vote, there is no voting based on the current vote tally and there is little to no voting based on what someone else voted for. Sure other things still apply like price and availability as well as wanting to read. But that's a lot more fair then voting based on the votes of others.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

For February, is 7 too few? Should it be 10 as with the books?

Seven seems to be a good number, IMO.

I don't think 10 would be too many, but I don't see us getting there. There are 2 days left in this nomination process and other than "arguing" specifics, it looks like those who are interested in participating have done so.

However, Maybe you could lift the number requirement, leave the nominations open for the full week, and see what we come up with in the end... That should give a better idea as to where to aim next time.