 |
 |
I have mixed feelings on the idea of requiring a minimum weight in the voting process. Vote pandering is definitely a real issue, but I think imposing strictures on the voting process goes a little bit against something fundamental about Code4Lib's anarcho-democratic underpinnings. I think one of the values of the weighted approval voting is that there's the flexibility to use the weightings to vote with a particular agenda -- in this case we happen not to care for the agenda, but one could imagine many agenda-ized voting approaches that are totally aboveboard. I don't know if ecorrado's suggestion of moving the presentation voting before registration would be a true fix, but it might smooth out the process a little bit. On the other hand, it might just shift the vote pandering from one group of people to another. Here's another idea: maybe we can set a deadline for new Code4Lib accounts, after which newly created accounts are not eligible for voting. This deadline could be some time after proposals are due but before voting opens. This might help stop a flood of new ballotstuffing accounts and help to mitigate this sort of problem. -dre. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Lynch,Katherine <[log in to unmask]> 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 >