SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I wanted to get feedback on how the community feels about our current name vote. There have been some concerns that we've had relatively small percentage (~10 percent) of members register to vote, and wanted to see if there was something more fundamental going on. As it is currently setup, here's how things are
- You had to be registered by April 12th to have been included in the name vote; if you received a ballot for submission, you should have gotten ranking ballot
- We haven't retroactively added in additional users, though it hasn't been clear that there was a hard cutoff
- The submission phase went until the 19th, and the vote for the name will continue until the 27th
- The current system is email only (but we are looking at getting something integrated into the website implemented for future votes)
I want to hear your feedback below from everyone. Based on what we get back, we'll roll improvements into future votes, or if need be, reset the vote and do it again; I know a lot of you are active here or at least more involved, so the relatively low turnout is a warning canary for me. Leave your comments below, and expect another story in a few days to see how we're using your comments.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
This life is yours. Some of it was given to you; the rest, you made yourself.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dtremenak on Wednesday April 23 2014, @11:23PM
I'm sure this'll get moderated redundant, but since we're being asked for feedback I might as give some, even if it's bound to be pretty much the same as everyone else's.
- Voting by email to begin with was not a great idea. Works great for mailing lists. Not so good for websites.
- Sending the email with reams of instructions about how not to break the parser was certainly not a way to build confidence that our votes would count.
- "Rank from 1 to 9, but 9 is the best," is patently ridiculous. I'd be willing to bet good money that at least 25% of your respondents put them in the opposite order. (You know, where 1st place is 1, 2nd place is 2, and so on).
- "Choose 9 of these 90 options" is even more ridiculous. Ain't nobody got time for that.
- And my subscription address is a Yahoo! account, so I couldn't even reply to the darned thing. I know that's just Yahoo! being stupid, nothing SoylentNews has to do with it, but when combined with all the above issues, it was enough for me to decide I just didn't care enough.
Besides, "SoylentNews," while it might not be a superb name, is just fine. I already have it bookmarked.
(Score: 2) by gringer on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:03AM
Yep, count me in for that. It wasn't clear enough in the email (what does "highest" mean?), so I went with what I've used before for similar voting systems. I'm used to a preferential voting system where you can put in as many numbers as you want, counting up from 1, with 1 being the best preference. A single '1' vote means that you rank a single option above all others, and all others are equally bad (or equally good).
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by jpkunst on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:46PM
I understood the "Rank from 1 to 9, but 9 is the best" conundrum (after reading it a few times to make sure). I only voted for one domain and in that case I don't see how it matters which number I use for that vote (since all other unranked names are below the single ranked name). So I used "1" for my ranking number.
Agreed that the "9 is best, 1 is worst" ranking is counterintuitive and a bad idea.
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:18PM
You can re send it:
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=1177&cid=35 354 [soylentnews.org]
(Score:1^½, Radical)