Poll

I vote yes. Active participants get a vote that counts double.
Doesn't have to be participation in the current read.

I have mixed feelings about weighted voting in general but I am definitely not for the comments made on the classic read having an impact on the vote for the contemporary read.

I don't think it's needed.

I think it would be hard to gauge one's participation depending on the current reads, temporary lapses of interest, etc. But if the mods have a plan for that, I don't really care either way. It would be fair to give active participants more weight in voting, I just don't know a fair way to measure contribution.

I voted no because Of the following... Because this group reads larger books it is at the expense of other groups’ reads during that time. Because of the investment ( both timely and most of the times monetary), I just can’t participate in books that I have no interest in. For January I had chosen 3 books I was ready to jump into, but none of them won. I will cross my fingers, throw salt over one of my shoulders, walk under the horseshoe the previous owner hung up to walk under ( I know not why.), and vote again with great hope for the next read.
Giving my vote less weight is not going to help my grande ( if I say it in high school French does it make you believe me more?) desires of finally - fina-l-l-y - getting my wish come true: My wish to
1. Googling best translations or just the prettiest editions
2. Researching background of book and/or author ( only a chunkster deserves such as this.)
3. Researching any lists or maps that will assist my reading ( the group did this together in Dr. Zhivago and I loved the character list) People may not even know that I read Dr. Zhivago. I have a much slower reading pace than most others because of health reasons I’d be happy to discuss with moderators. But through no fault of my own , I usually find what I am able to comment in the first few chapters, then I begin to see that all I have to say has already been commented on and I hate repeating others. If I do so, it is because I have missed reading their comment.
I don’t believe my comment number adequately represents how much time I am committing or my participation in general. I know many people are reluctant to make comments. I don’t think that should be encouraged but should they be somewhat less?
Thank you for allowing comments on this issue!:-)

Whoa. For a minute there, I thought it said 50 to 5.

I pretty much echo Andrea's comments in post #4. But I voted "no" in this poll. I think we should just see how it goes with the trimmed group for now. We can always revisit the idea of weighted voting in the future.

I voted yes as I think it makes sense for active participants to have more of a role in the selection. This seems to work well in the Western Canon group. It will be up to the moderator to define active participation. In my own view it means that you are present commenting/questioning/pondering as the read progresses (contributing so to say).

I'm on the fence about this right now, so I'm voting No.

So far I haven't really seen a solution that I'm comfortable with. My main pet peeve is seeing someone suddenly join the group, vote, and then disappear. I believe we've seen an example of that in the last poll, and it has certainly happened a lot in the past. One book in particular comes to mind.

When you see someone voting who is new to GR, who has no Read, or TBR books listed, and only belongs to a group with zero comments (not even a hello) - or someone who has 5000 friends, but has never rated a book, or participated in a group read...well, to me, I don't think they should be jumping in and voting on a poll when just a few votes can decide what is going to be read for the next 4-6 weeks.

I'd like to wait until we see a Classic and a Contemporary read completed before deciding on a weighted voting methodology. I think it would give us a more informed idea of an approach that will work for our particular group of members.

this is a pretty close race! Well poll will be open until the 24th so we will see how it goes. Remember that whatever we do if it's not working we can change it.

Candace wrote: "I voted no because Of the following... Because this group reads larger books it is at the expense of other groups’ reads during that time. Because of the investment ( both timely and most of the ti..."

I have to agree with Candace - I'm often caught in the same quandary. And there are so few chunksters read in a year's time, there could be a whole year when I don't participate because I've either already read it, or have no desire to read it.

I think the requirement that if you vote, and your choice wins, you must participate in the discussion, is a decent middle ground. That rule has managed to curb my impulsive enthusiasm more than once. Following up on it might be difficult, tho'.

How about if you vote you must participate and if you don’t your next vote doesn’t count? (Really, you can’t vote next time). Does that work?

Dianne wrote: "How about if you vote you must participate and if you don’t your next vote doesn’t count? (Really, you can’t vote next time). Does that work?"

Well, I don't think the 'losers' should be required to participate in a book they voted against. That is an argument against weighting, that the winners get more say in the next selection.

Christopher wrote: "Dianne wrote: "How about if you vote you must participate and if you don’t your next vote doesn’t count? (Really, you can’t vote next time). Does that work?"

Well, I don't think the 'losers' shoul..."

No they wouldn’t have to. If you vote for the winning book you’d have to participate to keep a vote for next time. Losers still get a vote.

Dianne wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Dianne wrote: "How about if you vote you must participate and if you don’t your next vote doesn’t count? (Really, you can’t vote next time). Does that work?"

No they wouldn’t have to. If you vote for the winning book you’d have to participate to keep a vote for next time. Losers still get a vote. ..."

Sounds right to me - it always makes me think twice, or more, before I punch any buttons.

Christopher wrote: "That is an argument against weighting, that the winners get more say in the next selection."

That's why I voted no. The people who participate are the ones who voted for the winning book (or at least were willing to read it). Others might have been equally willing to participate if their choice had won ... but it didn't, and they have other things to read, so they don't participate. If their vote counts less next time, we could end up with a subgroup of high weighted voters always voting in the same type of book.

Now, that might make for a cohesive and lively group. So maybe it would be a good thing for the group. But I know from having been in this group since 2011 that I wouldn't be one of the people whose choices usually won. So selfishly I vote no.

Rosemary wrote: "Christopher wrote: "That is an argument against weighting, that the winners get more say in the next selection."

That's why I voted no. The people who participate are the ones who voted for the wi..."

rosemary, what about janice's idea in the comment above that the losers won't have their vote count less?

Hi Dianne, I saw your post about the weighting results, and I just wanted to thank you for all of the great work you are putting into moderating this group. We are fortunate to have you!

Paula wrote: "Hi Dianne, I saw your post about the weighting results, and I just wanted to thank you for all of the great work you are putting into moderating this group. We are fortunate to have you!"

Thank you Paula you are very kind !