On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:34 AM, "Richard, Joel M" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In the end, the conference organizers can invite whoever they want to speak. The voting ends up being a courtesy to the rest of us.
> 
> --Joel
> 
> Joel Richard
> Lead Web Developer, Web Services Department
> Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/
> (202) 633-1706 | [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 

This indicates a massive misunderstanding of how code4lib works. 

-Sean


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Lynch,Katherine wrote:
> 
>> I was actually going to suggest just this, Kåre!  Another way to handle
>> it, or perhaps an additional way, would be give a user's votes a certain
>> amount of weight proportionate to the number of sessions they voted on.
>> So if they evaluated all of them and voted, 100% of their vote gets
>> counted.  If they evaluated half, 50%, and so on?  Not sure if this is
>> worth the effort, but I know it's worked for various camps that I've been
>> to which fall prey to the same problem.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Katherine
>> 
>> On 12/1/11 6:55 AM, "Kåre Fiedler Christiansen" <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Michael B. Klein
>>> 
>>> <snip>
>>> 
>>>> In any case, I'm interested to see how effective this current "call
>>>> for
>>>> support" is.
>>> 
>>> Me too!
>>> 
>>> Could someone with access to the voting data perhaps anonymously pull out
>>> how many voters have given points to only a single talk or two?
>>> 
>>> If the problem is indeed real, perhaps simply stating on the page that
>>> you are expected to evaluate _all_ proposals, and not just vote up a
>>> single talk, would help the issue? It might turn away some of the "wrong
>>> voters". Requiring to give out at least, say, 10 points, could be perhaps
>>> be a way to enforce some participation?
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Kåre