 |
 |
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