MobileRead 2015 Categories Poll

[Dazrin]

And there it is...

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The last list I posted is the list. Any other list is a list in progress. So please put back the list as it was in post #72. IThe problem as I pointed out is that by removing "not modern fiction" ruins "modern fiction". I do not give my approval for the changing of the lists.

As I stated in my comment response:

Originally Posted by Dazrin

Because the list in post 46 had agreement from multiple people (posts 46, 49, 50, 51, 59) whereas only one person wanted "not modern fiction" (posts 37 and 72).

The list posted in post 72 changed the list from the one that had multiple people (including you) agreeing to it, so wasn't really a re-post. As indicated in post 65, I had intended to use the list as updated by treadlightly and only linked to post 72 when I thought it was the same but most recent list. I didn't notice that it had changed when I included and linked to it and therefore it is my fault that it went live with that included. If this continues to be an issue, we can ask WT Sharpe for a ruling or maybe have a run-off if it ends up winning to clarify which version should be used.

I am very sorry for the confusion, but using the list that had the most support was the intention. Hopefully we can work it out if it does end up winning.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now I 100% give my approval for remove classic or romance for "historical fiction". But good luck getting that by the majority.

That is the reason I didn't vote for this list, I would rather re-vote on everything and have a chance to get rid of the ones I don't care for (specifically the romance and humor for me) than keep them just because I made an assumption that "everyone else wants them still".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

That is the reason I didn't vote for this list, I would rather re-vote on everything and have a chance to get rid of the ones I don't care for (specifically the romance and humor for me) than keep them just because I made an assumption that "everyone else wants them still".

We've had enough votes so far to know that they get voted in. So I put them in because of that. I would have left in romance for February and dumped humor if I could have.

However, "historical fiction" was to go in, I think humor would be the best place to be replaced.

[Dazrin]

You edited after I had started my response earlier, so here are some further comments w/ your edit.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Besides, there's no reason to nominate something that is "historical fiction" in a number of other categories where it would fit fine. There would be 6 months where you could fit in something that's "historical fiction" just like I could put in SF in eight months not including the SF month.

The problem with changing the list is that it's now not how we voted for it. We didn't vote on a list that has "historical fiction" My vote has been violated. So please put it back to the way we voted. If it wins, we can discuss if there's a good month to drop in place of "historical fiction". But "not modern fiction" is not it because it has to be there to go with "modern fiction".

At least one of the other votes for this category was based on using "historical fiction" rather than "not modern fiction" as indicated in the discussion thread. So, either way a vote "has been violated".

When this was first pointed out, I sent a PM to WT Sharpe asking if we can reset the vote and start over since I knew this would be an issue. It doesn't sound like it is possible. If there is a way to reset the voting and add another choice I would be all for that. It sounds like we could re-write a question, but that wouldn't really help either, so since it doesn't sound like we can reset it at this point, I would prefer to keep it as now written which is what had been intended and then have a roll-call or run-off to decide which option option wins.

Like I said, I really hope a different option wins; partly because of my mistake here and not wanting to have to deal with this and partly because I really want to have a chance to get rid of a couple categories that I don't care for.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We've had enough votes so far to know that they get voted in. So I put them in because of that. I would have left in romance for February and dumped humor if I could have.

However, "historical fiction" was to go in, I think humor would be the best place to be replaced.

I know we have voted on a lot of these before, but the active membership has changed a lot in the last couple years since we had a vote, so I think a clean slate is a good idea.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

You edited after I had started my response earlier, so here are some further comments w/ your edit.


At least one of the other votes for this category was based on using "historical fiction" rather than "not modern fiction" as indicated in the discussion thread. So, either way a vote "has been violated".

When this was first pointed out, I sent a PM to WT Sharpe asking if we can reset the vote and start over since I knew this would be an issue. It doesn't sound like it is possible. If there is a way to reset the voting and add another choice I would be all for that. It sounds like we could re-write a question, but that wouldn't really help either, so since it doesn't sound like we can reset it at this point, I would prefer to keep it as now written which is what had been intended and then have a roll-call or run-off to decide which option option wins.

Like I said, I really hope a different option wins; partly because of my mistake here and not wanting to have to deal with this and partly because I really want to have a chance to get rid of a couple categories that I don't care for.

I have an idea then. If we do replace not modern fiction with historical fiction, maybe we can have classic be 1999 or earlier. Go ahead, and replace not modern fiction and change classic to "classic (1999 or earlier)".

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have an idea then. If we do replace not modern fiction with historical fiction, maybe we can have classic be 1999 or earlier. Go ahead, and replace not modern fiction and change classic to "classic (1999 or earlier)".

That would work for me, but again, at this point I just want to leave it as-is and if this option wins we can discuss, vote, etc. At least we will have taken a step forward. I wish it could have been more and we could be done, but that is my fault for not checking as close as I should have before I posted the poll.

Your previous comment here was along the lines of "we can see how to fit historical fiction in if this option wins", which I agree with and seems to be something that would work too.

[John F]

IMO, I would like the categories names to be fixed (and some sort of idea of what the category means) at the time of the poll. I don't care much about the order of categories. I say we we use post 46 for D; it seemed to be the established list at the time of vote.

I dislike the loosey goosey approach to category determination.

IMO, If Dazrin is fed up with the current poll, that's fine and we can reset. If Dazarin or WTSharpe doesn't want to run a new poll, I volunteer; but I warn you, you may not like what you get.

[HomeInMyShoes]

And by the voting I see that I am the contrarian.

[treadlightly]

Is anyone else incredibly glad nobody has voted for Option I?

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by John F

IMO, I would like the categories names to be fixed (and some sort of idea of what the category means) at the time of the poll. I don't care much about the order of categories. I say we we use post 46 for D; it seemed to be the established list at the time of vote.

I dislike the loosey goosey approach to category determination.

On my phone this morning...

I wasn't sure how to name these categories, I would have liked more succinct names, but didn't know what to use. Hopefully the descriptions, links, and lists in the OP are adequate.

We are using post 46 for item D since that is the one that had most agreement during the discussion, but since I goofed up, we may need to clarify one category afterwards. I was thinking that I could check with everyone who voted for it and see if there is a clear majority one way or the other. Or else we can use Jon's suggestion to replace a different category.

Originally Posted by John F

IMO, If Dazrin is fed up with the current poll, that's fine and we can reset. If Dazarin or WTSharpe doesn't want to run a new poll, I volunteer; but I warn you, you may not like what you get.

Not really fed up with the poll, more mad at myself for the mistake I made since I understand Jon's concern about being disenfranchised, but also understand the other side where the list that more people supported had a different category that I originally posted.

[JSWolf]

If my list wins, we will figure out where to put historical fiction. So don't worry about it.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If my list wins, we will figure out where to put historical fiction. So don't worry about it.

Just for the record, I object.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

Just for the record, I object.

So if my list wins, would it be best then to have yet another vote where we decide if we want to put in Historical Fiction?

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So if my list wins, would it be best then to have yet another vote where we decide if we want to put in Historical Fiction?

Your list can't win. Post 46 is the list we are voting for. IMO.

[WT Sharpe]

@Dazrin:

Are we having fun yet?