MobileRead Discussion/Suggestion Thread

[John F]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

I think there was some discussion of re-evaluating categories again this year (I may be mistaken), but I was wondering if it is time to look at visible voting too.

I know there are a few people who don't like the visible voting and I am wondering if changing votes to hidden would encourage them to vote and participate. Things have been visible for a few years now. Everything since at least 2014, maybe 2013, and partially visible for at least a couple years prior to that.

The last poll:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=197507

[JSWolf]

I feel that visible influences the vote. That's not right. Some of the time we've had non-visible voting, the votes were more even. I think some won't vote for books they think can't win. Also, who voted for what can also be an influence. The way I see it, the people who voted visible in the poll are the ones who are able to be influenced rather than vote their minds (i.e., lemmings).

[issybird]

With multiple-choice voting (highly desirable) there's no reason for someone not to vote for a book even if it seems an unlikely winner. That's one of the points of multiple-choice voting, the main one being to arrive at a selection that's "good enough" for a plurality of voters.

On to the issue at hand. I'm for anything that would encourage more participation. Would closed voting do that? Also, there's two systems of closed voting: closed while the poll is ongoing and closed even after the poll closes. Which are we talking about?

Would more people participate if they could vote privately? I don't know. I'm already frustrated by people who vote and don't participate and I think having private voting would lead to more of that. Frankly, the only time public voting influences my vote is when two contenders are close in both votes and my estimation and one has more support from people who will likely show up for the discussion. That one will get my vote.

[CRussel]

I am completely opposed to closed voting -- we already have too many people who vote and don't then participate, even when it's a book they voted for. Hiding the vote just accentuates that and makes it more likely that voting will be skewed by non-participants.

That being said, I think the voting mechanism is not the issue -- participation is. Perhaps we should consider weighted voting - with prior participation leading to increased voting shares. I'm not sure I'm proposing that, but I'd be more than willing to discuss it.

[JSWolf]

Closed voting would be while the votes were ongoing. After that, we'd be able to see the results.

I agree that we do get more votes for the winning book ban we get participants.

[Dazrin]

As issybird and CRussel noted the issue is more about participation than about voting style. If someone chimes in* and says "I would participate if the voting were hidden", I think we should seriously consider changing it. If no-one does that, then I don't see a reason to change it.

JSWolf, I know you prefer the hidden votes, I understand your reasons even though I don't agree with several of them, but you participate either way which is great. Thank you! We also need to hear from those people who don't participate because of the visible vote (or wouldn't participate if it was hidden).

* Feel free to PM me if you want to remain anonymous.

[John F]

Maybe a sticky thread with a couple of posts describing what the Book Club is, rules, how things are done,...

I used to like the nominating and voting threads (in which I participated) for finding / recommending books, and I wasn't much into discussion. I bowed out when it seemed the club was meant to be more about discussion.

Maybe having a clear statement on what the club "is" would help?

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by John F

Maybe a sticky thread with a couple of posts describing what the Book Club is, rules, how things are done,...

I used to like the nominating and voting threads (in which I participated) for finding / recommending books, and I wasn't much into discussion. I bowed out when it seemed the club was meant to be more about discussion.

Maybe having a clear statement on what the club "is" would help?

This is in the introduction material for every nomination thread:

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

The Mobile Read Book Club (MRBC) is an informal club that requires nothing of you. Each month a book is selected by polling. On the last week of that month a discussion thread is started for the book. If you want to participate feel free. There is no need to "join" or sign up. All are welcome.

Maybe this needs updated to reflect that we are hoping those who nominate/vote will participate in the discussions? Something else?

As for information in general, each of the nomination and voting threads has an intro about the nomination or voting process and I recently added some general "how things work" information to the Book Club Selections List as well.

I am not opposed to changing that thread to "Book Club Introduction, FAQ, and Selections List" (or something) and adding more detail there if people think that would be helpful. There are already 9 stickied threads and I would prefer to do that instead of asking for a new thread to be stickied. It would probably be a copy/paste from the nominations thread for now unless we want to update that information.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by John F

Maybe a sticky thread with a couple of posts describing what the Book Club is, rules, how things are done,...

I used to like the nominating and voting threads (in which I participated) for finding / recommending books, and I wasn't much into discussion. I bowed out when it seemed the club was meant to be more about discussion.

Maybe having a clear statement on what the club "is" would help?

If there's no discussion, there's no club.

I take your point about the nomination process; the more, the better for the purposes of discovery. But that ends once the nominations close. After that, a vote without participation is just a popularity contest and where's the point in that if there's no follow-through?

Originally Posted by Dazrin

This is in the introduction material for every nomination thread:

Maybe this needs updated to reflect that we are hoping those who nominate/vote will participate in the discussions? Something else?

As for information in general, each of the nomination and voting threads has an intro about the nomination or voting process and I recently added some general "how things work" information to the Book Club Selections List as well.

I am not opposed to changing that thread to "Book Club Introduction, FAQ, and Selections List" (or something) and adding more detail there if people think that would be helpful. There are already 9 stickied threads and I would prefer to do that instead of asking for a new thread to be stickied. It would probably be a copy/paste from the nominations thread for now unless we want to update that information.

Tom obviously needs to sign on to any change and I suspect he wants to keep the club open and non-compulsory. I personally would like to encourage more participation. Quite selfishly, I get tired of discussing books that didn't particularly appeal to me when those who voted for it can't be bothered. But I really have no clue regarding what would make the discussions more enticing. Because what's more fun than talking about books?

[John F]

Dazrin, for some reason those introductions slipped my mind, my apologies. And excellent work on the book list thread.

It still seems as though there should be something else. Like a collection of rules: a book can't be nominated twice in the same year, ...

I like WT Sharpes general principle: he is "just" an administrator, everything else is determined by nominations/polling. It was why I linked to the poll, it seemed to be an indicator of what people want, and yet it looks like it is going the opposite way.

[John F]

Originally Posted by issybird

If there's no discussion, there's no club.

I take your point about the nomination process; the more, the better for the purposes of discovery. But that ends once the nominations close. After that, a vote without participation is just a popularity contest and where's the point in that if there's no follow-through?

...

Fair enough. It took me quite a while to catch on to "if there is no discussion, there is no club."

[CRussel]

I'm fine with "lurkers" nominating. I think it improves the overall likelihood that we'll find a good book to read that month. That being said, I do have a bit of a problem with those who have no intention of participating in the discussion being involved in the voting. I'm not saying that you must always participate if you vote, but I do think you should recuse yourself from the vote if you don't want to participate in the discussion.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by issybird

If there's no discussion, there's no club.

Originally Posted by issybird

I take your point about the nomination process; the more, the better for the purposes of discovery. But that ends once the nominations close. After that, a vote without participation is just a popularity contest and where's the point in that if there's no follow-through?

Your first line needed to stand by itself.

I definitely like that nominations are open to everyone but it might be nice to have a little stronger language about voting ... if you vote for a book and it wins you should follow through and discuss it with us. There will always be exceptions but hopefully most people who voted for a book will participate.

Originally Posted by issybird

Tom obviously needs to sign on to any change...

His general course of action is let us kick things around between ourselves, prod us when we go too far out of line, and then, when we finally get around to what he already knew was right, say "that works, let's do it." We've just found the thing we want to kick around so there's still a long way to go before anything gets finalized.

Originally Posted by John F

It still seems as though there should be something else. Like a collection of rules: a book can't be nominated twice in the same year, ...

Other than the processes for how the nominations/votes work, the only two rules I can think of are:

• After a book is fully nominated it cannot be nominated again for 6 months.
• After a book is selected, it cannot be nominated again later.

I don't think there is even a rule about the nomination even being an e-book. It isn't likely to get much support and will be noted as such (if someone notices) but I think it could be nominated. Tom basically lets anything stand in the nominations based on what gets seconded/thirded unless someone points out that it is ineligible for some reason. The only reasons I have seen actually invoked are the the two above.

Spoiler:

For reference, between the lines here is what I added to the first post of the Selections List post:

---

General: See the first post in nomination and voting threads for more information.

• Discussion begins on the 20th of each month. A new thread will be posted for the discussion.
• Nominations for the next month also begin on the 20th and last for 7 days or until 10 selections are fully nominated (three people have nominated the book).
  • You may nominate (or second/third) up to three books during each nomination period.
  • Any e-book is eligible as long as it meets the current category and has not been fully nominated in the last 6 months.
  • Books that are widely available are preferred (country and vendor) but not required.
• The nomination period is immediately followed by a 5 day voting period which is multiple choice and anyone may vote.
• If required, a 3 day run-off vote will then follow; WT Sharpe will cast a tie-breaker vote if this is also a tie.

---

I would appreciate some feedback on that thread in general, feel free to post over there.

• Does the new formatting work for everyone else?
• Is there any value to the vote/nomination links or should I remove them?
• Is my general information summary accurate and clear?
• Did I miss anything?
• Any other suggestions?

[CRussel]

Usually at some point during the year we re-visit the categories for the next year. Traditionally, we've had a general "non-fiction" category, which got dropped this year. However, I observe that of the five books that got fully nominated for this month's "Free-For-All" category (which I'm not a big fan of, BTW), four were what I would call general non-fiction, though at least one you could reasonably call history, and another you could classify as science (if a bit of a stretch). IAC, I found it interesting that when given a completely open choice of category, we went for a category that got dropped this year. Perhaps we should consider that when we go to choose categories for next year.

[JSWolf]

I suggest we go for a general non-fiction and drop classic.