The Catholic Book Club discussion

I've decided to start a new Atrium for 2022 after all. We haven't had much discussion in the Atrium the last couple years, but I think the next post might change that. As a reminder, the Atrium is the place to come and raise questions or discuss topics that aren't raised or discussed elsewhere. Nothing is off topic in the Atrium, but please recall that we are a Catholic site and conduct yourselves appropriately. :-)

So, the topic of the day - coordinated voting. We have no rule against it, but I think Jt spoke for many of us when he said it was not appropriate behavior. But, as suggestive as this was, it could have been innocent and we should all try to maintain a charitable view.

But. Coordinated voting would be a problem if it became widespread. Even if it there is no rule against it, it is corrupt. The problem with a rule is how does one enforce it? It would require the moderators to make determinations in the absence of sufficient knowledge, which could end up being as divisive as coordinated voting would be if it became widespread.

There is an unrelated issue. Lurking voters. Those who vote for books, but who never participate in the discussions of the books we read. This is only a problem in that they influence what is read and discussed without fully participating themselves. But again, how to differentiate between those who intend to, but get busy (I am behind in my reading of three of our last four books), or really only want to read a certain type of book, which is rarely or never chosen. This is admittedly a minor problem and one that I don't think bothers many people. I only bring it up because both issues might be addressed with the same solution.

For discussion: Weighted voting based on the number of comments a member has made. Goodreads allows us to sort the member list by the number of comments made, which allows this to be done with a minimum of extra work for the Moderators. For purposes of discussion, the weighting might go something like the following:

Fewer than 25 comments - 1
25 - 49 comments - 2
50 - 99 comments - 3
100 - 249 comments - 4
over 250 comments - 5

This could be done with the current 2 votes per person, or with just 1 (in which case we might reduce the Voting List back to 10 books).

This does not, of course, eliminate the possibility for gaming. But the gaming would be more obvious and open and the Moderators would reserve the right to address excessive cases individually.

Thoughts?

At 'Catholic Thought' we do weighted tabulation of the votes.
1 - 49 Comments - 1
50 + comments - 2
It works really well. It takes a little commitment to get up to 50, but for those who participate (regular or semi-regular) this is not so hard to reach.

At 'Classics and the Western Canon' they have a three-tiered system which they implemented a long time ago. It was them who gave me the idea in the first place. I contacted one of the moderators to get more input, and it reduced for them the "vote and run" significantly.
1-99 comments 1
100 - 299 comments 2
300 + comments 3

From a moderator's perspective, the more tiers you have the more work it makes to get to the final vote count. So that's a factor as well.

I'm new to the discussion though not new to Goodreads. I'd like to respectfully contribute my two cents.

I support systematizing group privileges such as voting.

However, I don't think there is anything wrong in the slightest with an author who would like more people to read his book posting on social media that his book is in the running for a club's "read-of-the-month" and asking for people to vote for his work, especially if the author at the same time recommends the reading group to the larger public and encourages people to join and stay.

I hardly think accusations of corruption are fair to the author.

Isak wrote: "I'm new to the discussion though not new to Goodreads. I'd like to respectfully contribute my two cents.

I support systematizing group privileges such as voting.

However, I don't think there is ..."

Thank you, Isak. I agree and that interpretation isn't what I would consider "coordinated voting" and is consistent with what I said about charitable interpretations.

My reference to coordinated voting was not intended to be aimed at a particular instance or a particular person, but to note that coordinated voting is corrupt and devalues the participation of others in the group. Examples that I would consider problematic, without suggesting that this happened in this case or any other:

- Frustrated with my preferred book not being selected, I contact some friends and get them to join and vote as I instruct, though they have little interest in the club and no intention of participating.

- I get one or more other members to agree that we'll vote as a block for the books or book that we select among ourselves, rotating so we each get to choose a book in turn.

- I create several fake members and cast their votes for my book so it wins.

There are, of course, numerous other ways in which this could be done, but again, I am not saying that it has been done this way. The fact that four people showed up at the end of voting, joined Goodreads and CBC that day, and voted for the exact same books, changing the outcome of the voting, raised concerns for the moderators.

I readily admit that your interpretation could be correct and so have let the voting results stand. I hope you can see the red flags raised by the facts I've noted and our concern on what this could mean for the group.

John wrote: "Isak wrote: "I'm new to the discussion though not new to Goodreads. I'd like to respectfully contribute my two cents.

I support systematizing group privileges such as voting.

However, I don't th..."

I appreciate the response John! I see your point much more clearly, especially as that second possible problematic example didn't even cross my mind.

I see the red flags you note and look forward to the solution moderators come to.

Kerstin wrote: "At 'Catholic Thought' we do weighted tabulation of the votes.
1 - 49 Comments - 1
50 + comments - 2
It works really well. It takes a little commitment to get up to 50, but for those who participate (regular or semi-regular) this is not so hard to reach.

At CBC, there would be 17 people with weighted votes if we adopted this approach.

At 'Classics and the Western Canon' they have a three-tiered system which they implemented a long time ago. It was them who gave me the idea in the first place. I contacted one of the moderators to get more input, and it reduced for them the "vote and run" significantly.
1-99 comments 1
100 - 299 comments 2
300 + comments 3

At CBC, this approach would, today, result in 5 members with votes weighted at 2, and 5 members with votes weighted at 3.

If we look at the structure I outlined, there would be, today, the indicated number of members for each enhanced tier of voting:

25 - 49 comments - 2 - eleven members
50 - 99 comments - 3 - seven members
100 - 249 comments - 4 - five members
over 250 comments - 5 - five members (and one is extremely close)

Resulting in a total of 28 members with enhanced voting.

From a moderator's perspective, the more tiers you have the more work it makes to get to the final vote count. So that's a factor as well."

Point taken, though I wonder if the number of tiers is as big a factor as the number of members with enhanced votes. Another concern with my original suggestion is that it may give too much weight to the most active - they should have more weight, but I don't think so much as to be dominant.

John wrote: "Another concern with my original suggestion is that it may give too much weight to the most active - they should have more weight, but I don't think so much as to be dominant."

Another possibility would be to conflate the top three tiers you suggested:

1-24 comments 1
25 - 49 comments 2 (eleven members)
50 + comments 3 (seventeen members)

which would probably eliminate dominance, keeping the total number of members with enhanced voting. Or some similar distribution.

My favorite is Kerstin's first option. 50 comments is a good cutoff.

The second option Kerstin suggested is my second favorite.

I consider that it is too much that a member may have more than 3 votes.

Must the comments be about the books we are reading, or a person who votes every time but never discusses books could reach the cutoff number of comments just by voting?

Mariangel wrote: "Must the comments be about the books we are reading, or a person who votes every time but never discusses book could reach 50 comments just by voting?"

Yes, that's a concern, but subtracting the votes from the comments would not be so easy to do.

I'm offering here another possibility, which could be considered as a hybrid between the two Kerstin's proposals:

50 - 99 comments 2 (seven members)
100 + comments 3 (ten members)

Mariangel wrote: "Must the comments be about the books we are reading, or a person who votes every time but never discusses books could reach the cutoff number of comments just by voting?"

I thought about that and thought about doing a rough deduction for voting, but as I explained the idea to Manuel, I realized how much work it would be every month and dropped it. By starting the enhanced value at 50, it would take over 4 years for someone who only voted and never commented to get an enhanced vote. I'm not opposed to rewarding that kind of consistency.

I agree, 50 is a good cutoff and it saves you the work of distinguishing different types of comments.

Isak wrote: "I'm new to the discussion though not new to Goodreads. I'd like to respectfully contribute my two cents.

I support systematizing group privileges such as voting.

However, I don't think there is ..."
I didn't see anyone accusing an author of manipulating the voting space to get others to read his or her book and I am unaware as to whether the author of the book voted on this ballot.
However, should such an event occur, I should think it morally problematical. Books might be promoted at the behest of others, rather than because an individual associated with the group found it to be a desirable book to read. As authors often receive remuneration from book sales, greed could be both a motivating factor in promotion and a vice encouraged by such practice. This problem of duplicity emerges and trust between goodreads members might be undermined.
I've always voted in good faith, and although I often lack time to read along with the group, I regularly read the comments and read along where I can.
I would not want to be part of promoting an author who used deceit to encourage readership and book reviews-bearing false witness goes against our Catholic faith.
I've always liked the one person one vote and hope that voters will be honorable in there practices. It's wonderful to encourage others to discover our reading community. Encouraging others to stack a vote is disrespectful to the group.
Of course there is no direct proof that such a thing occurred and I hope that it never shall occur.

First, my apologies for my minimal presence on the site of late - I am swamped with work and family responsibilities. I am trying to restore some balance, and the CBC is important for my balance.

Second, I am considering using this group as the base for an in-person discussion group at my church. We would discuss the CBC BOTM, probably near the end of the month. I suspect some members of the parish book club would want to join CBC to vote on books each month. I would encourage them to participate in the online discussion as well, though there is of course no guaranty that they would.

Before I make a formal proposal to my pastor, I feel I should check and see if anyone here has any concerns about the idea. I don't think it would impact the group much, though it is of course possible that it may change the outcome of votes.

Thanks,

John

John wrote: "I suspect some members of the parish book club would want to join CBC to vote on books each month. I would encourage them to participate in the online discussion as well, though there is of course no guaranty that they would..."

I can't see any problem in this. The more people participate in our discussions, the better.

Happy Christmas to all members!

Merry Christmas!