Reading the Chunksters discussion

We will implement weighted voting for future polls after Moby Dick. What should the rules be? Should we include points for participation in buddy reads?

I am a little uneasy about the idea, though I would be happy to exclude votes by members who have never commented on anything. Otherwise new members will feel their voices will never be heard, and the "regulars" will continue to impose their tastes on the rest of us...

Another practical consideration is that using anything other than the GR polls (which can't be weighted) imposes a considerable admin overhead on whoever is running the poll.

Hugh wrote: "I am a little uneasy about the idea, though I would be happy to exclude votes by members who have never commented on anything. Otherwise new members will feel their voices will never be heard, and ..."

I think we can use GR polls, they would just have to be adjusted after the vote. I think that is how western canon does it, although I don't know the particulars.

It's a good point about new members, but I think it's fair for established members to pick the new books rather than a brand new member. I'm not sure how that would operate over time though, we wouldn't want the 'original' establishment to always hold sway.

Although it wouldn't work for weighting things, you could try a listopia each time instead of a poll. People would have to rank the books in the order they were willing to read them. Just the extra time and effort might tip things to where only the people who are serious about reading will vote.

I think we need to be careful of creating a group within a group. I have seen this first hand in another group and rather than encourage people it becomes quite off putting to the point where people feel their comments are pointless.I know it's early days but we shouldn't discourage new members from suggesting titles.

The particulars at Western Canon were recently explained:
0-99 comments= 1 vote
100 - 199 comments= 2 votes (i.e. vote counts double)
200+ comments= 3 votes.

The particulars of who checked everyone's "weight" and made adjustments to the raw vote were not explained.

Pressed post too soon! I agree with Hugh about sanctioning people who haven't commented

Christopher wrote: "The particulars at Western Canon were recently explained:
0-99 comments= 1 vote
100 - 199 comments= 2 votes (i.e. vote counts double)
200+ comments= 3 votes.

The particulars of who checked everyon..."
That could be gamed by anyone determined enough, and might lead to more off-topic and tangential comments!

I agree with Hugh on this one. Quality over quantity. I rather see a couple of insightful posts per person than scroll through hundreds of comments that may or may not have much relevance.

What if the points were not cumulative but just based on whether you participated in the last group read? Ie you get an extra point (or vote) if you joined the discussion for the most recent book. It would only be based on the last read so newcomers would get the same advantage after joining one read. And they would still get one vote upon joining.

Does that work?

Didn't we just kick out all these nonparticipants? For the second year in a row? If we pare the group down to one he or she will be happy on voting, not so much on discussions.

It is going to take me more than a month to read Moby Dick (unless I skip all the boring parts). Some books need - or justify - a slow reading, and time to digest. And it would tend, I think to make nominations (and/or votes) go to short chunksters. Some should be big reads.

What I'd like to see is a book a month, but each book should have a two month reading period. That way we would have Moby Dick and one other book going in February.

Don't think we need weighted voting if we already have nominations. Or you could give everyone a vote, and an extra for those who participate (They don't even have to know). I'm in the Western Cannon group and their counting comments (Over 100, over 200, over 300) is more than a bit overboard. But they vote, set an agenda, publish a schedule, make comments, and move on.

Let's try to do that.

There have been some good points about the possible negatives that come with weighted voting. Since the group has just gotten trimmed and we've had a good discussion on what we would all like from the group, perhaps we can just see how it goes with the usual voting. Though I do like Hugh's suggestion that people who have made no comments at all can have their votes thrown out.

Dan wrote: "Didn't we just kick out all these nonparticipants? For the second year in a row? If we pare the group down to one he or she will be happy on voting, not so much on discussions.

It is going to take..."

I think the pare down before was pretty minimal, so I'm not sure if it achieved the objective of keeping the group to core dedicated readers. In any event, we know we have them now! I really want to encourage participation, that is so essential to the success of the group. But I agree that we don't want the newbies to be left out in the cold. So I think I will go with 1 vote for newbies or those who did not participate in either of the last 2 group reads, and 2 votes for those who participated in one or both of the last two reads (this is because there may be some contemporary only members or classics only members). There will never be more than 2 votes per person, and it will depend on the participation for the past 2 reads and not a longer look back period. If this idea does not work, I am happy to scrap it. That goes for any of my ideas, for that matter. I'm flexible.

What are you considering participation... will those who abandon the discussion, for whatever reason, will they still get partial participation points... If it’s about quality versus quantity, can we make a couple of thoughtful comments in a few threads and still be able to consider ourselves as having participated in the discussion?

If you’re wanting to encourage participation with newer members, while rewarding your loyal membership, then I don’t not think it would behoove the group as a whole to have their vote count at all for not participating. Why not give them voting or nominating priveleges after they’ve read and discussed with a group.... or after accumulating X amount of participation pts?

Hugh wrote: "Christopher wrote: "The particulars at Western Canon were recently explained:
0-99 comments= 1 vote
100 - 199 comments= 2 votes (i.e. vote counts double)
200+ comments= 3 votes.

The particulars of..."

True, but We would know who is consistently participating in the discussions... The proof can be seen in the reading/book discussion threads. If It becomes an issue where the weight of one’s vote doesn’t coincide with them actively participating in group reads, then Dianne can either put them on notice or have them refrain from voting all together... Sounds a lot easier than having her hunting and picking through everybody’s comments, in an attempt to decipher said member’s true weight, doesn’t it?

It's a nice simple formula.

I will say it can lead to some "bizarre" upsets compared with the raw votes.

Ami wrote: "What are you considering participation... will those who abandon the discussion, for whatever reason, will they still get partial participation points... If it’s about quality versus quantity, can ..."

I don't want to be too strict about this, I want everyone to have 'a' vote and try to encourage participation by an extra vote for those that participate. I'm not going to rate people's consistency or quality. Dan suggested (I think) participation points be given for posts in the group outside of the monthly book discussion. That might be ok? What do others think about that? I get that sometimes a given book just doesn't work for you, but I do want to encourage book discussion in particular.

If we keep participation points to book discussion only, another question is do you have to finish the book or not to get the extra point. Thoughts?

perhaps one extra point for general discussion or joining but not finishing a book discussion, 2 for book discussion when you finish the book (but you can't earn 3 for finishing a book discussion and joining general discussion because I think that increases the 'spread' too much from newer members). so it would be either 1 extra or 2. And yes this does sway votes towards people that read the books, but that is the idea. And since you cannot accumulate points over time, it should be easy for new members to catch up.

if this proceeds, I would open a thread with each member's points so it is transparent to all how the votes play out

Ok so I'm not really for weighted voting. I would like to just read the book, participate in the discussion then vote for the next choice. Just keeping it simple for myself!

Ok I’m going to set up a poll for if we do weighted voting for the next book. We can always change what doesn’t work!

Dianne wrote: "perhaps one extra point for general discussion or joining but not finishing a book discussion, 2 for book discussion when you finish the book (but you can't earn 3 for finishing a book discussion a..."

Okay, we can post a comment in the general banter thread for the book and post a comment in the final thread, once we finish the novel, Receiving 2 pts for doing so...Does that work, if one chooses to approach it in this manner?

I think you are being the devil's advocate, Ami! You should be working on tax law..... ; -)

Haaze wrote: "I think you are being the devil's advocate, Ami! You should be working on tax law..... ; -)"

Devil’s advocate... isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black, Haaze? You’ve been personally blocked from my profile, my posts, etc... How is it that you’re even responding to my comment? ;)

Well, somebody has to....

Well, I say, if all the posters vote 'weight,' and all the non-posters vote 'don't weight,' then even if 'no' wins, it proves the need for weighting, don't you see?

"No" won the raw vote, but after weighting, "yes" won.

(Now that's devil's advocate...)

Christopher wrote: "Well, I say, if all the posters vote 'weight,' and all the non-posters vote 'don't weight,' then even if 'no' wins, it proves the need for weighting, don't you see?

"No" won the raw vote, but afte..."

Be careful, Chris! Now Ami may block your posts!

Now now, there shall be no spatting in chunksters or you are subject to trimming despite any merit associated with your remarks :)

I’m joking btw. Mostly :)

Does that mean there will be a recount after the poll? :P

I have just voted on this poll and voted no. My reasoning being that we all have issues going on that at times mean we don't always post or get to read a particular book but that doesn't mean we are not committed to the group. I think a better option is maybe a once a year re questioning of members of whether they want to be in the group or not so as to not carry inactive members indefinitely. Just my thoughts.

Christopher wrote: "Well, I say, if all the posters vote 'weight,' and all the non-posters vote 'don't weight,' then even if 'no' wins, it proves the need for weighting, don't you see?

"No" won the raw vote, but afte..."

So you've been reading Catch-22?

Just wanted to say, that some people can write pages and say absolutely nothing whilst others say it all in a few words. Who would get the most votes then? This is another reason I don't think weighted voting is practical or helpful to this group, whose purpose I believe is to encourage seeking gem stones in literature and threads of gold within, and to not merely read and produce more tomes of empty words.

I'm not such a stickler for weighting as I may seem.

I think it is something that comes up when there are signs that bad books, or less discussion worthy books are winnng polls.

In a small group it hardly matters.

And if the classics and contemporaries are alternating, there is less chance of someone feeling permanently in the minority.

Tracey wrote: "I have just voted on this poll and voted no. My reasoning being that we all have issues going on that at times mean we don't always post or get to read a particular book but that doesn't mean we ar..."

Tracey, I agree. I love this group but there are times of year when it is harder for me to participate due to work or family schedules. I also would rather have a smaller group of active members versus a large group with only a few people commenting.

There are also some of us who read all the comments but don't always feel the need to respond.

Ok chunksters fans! Thank you so much to all of you who voted, the fact that it was such a close race really underscored the importance of voting on this issue and having a discussion about it. The overall vote was NO for weighted voting for various reasons that you can read about in this thread and the comments to the poll. I think it is important that the group is now smaller and focused on people who are actively interested in the group and in participating - this makes it less of a concern that non-participants will sway the vote and then flee. However, while we don't want people (at this time) to get MORE of a vote if they participate, I don't think it's fair for those who vote for a winning book, and then don't participate, to get a vote next time. So that is how I am going to set it up. If you vote for a winning book and don't participate (that means reading the whole book in fact and showing up throughout the threads), then you lose your vote the next time. if you vote for a losing book, you retain your vote for next time but of course are welcome and encouraged to participate in the discussion of the winning book.

Since we are starting over this year, everyone gets a vote for the Feb book and the Moby Dick and Feb book participation will only impact future polls (i.e., again, you will only lose your next vote if you vote for a winning book and don't participate in the discussion of the whole book, and you get your vote back after the one missed vote). I get that life sometimes gets in the way, and you may have intended to join the whole discussion but couldn't, and that's fine, but you will just have to join the majority decision for the next book and then regain your vote the next time. We will see how it goes, and all is subject to change as we go along if there are any issues. I am going to set up the Feb contemporary poll before January, because, why not? It's great fun to discuss books!

Happy Holidays to all!!!