Science Fiction Aficionados discussion
Monthly Group Read Suggestions
>
Rethinking the Monthly Group Read Poll Concept
date
newest »
newest »
Agreed Dan. I would prefer weighted votes.
I disagree, one vote per person is my motto. However, I am finding it difficult to read anything the last few years. Still hopping that will change in the coming months (better health). I also have not voted much lately.
I find myself using the Good Read app far more than the web site. On the app, the polling section is not available. If there is a link to the polling section from the discussion board then one can vote from the app. This then may change the voting results that might have different results.
I also wonder if a publisher has many different accounts that can skew the polls. More money for the publisher if people decide to choose their book.
I admit my funds are getting low these days, I tend to choose books that I have purchased long ago and have not read them... yet.
Still, I am hoping to read more science fiction in the coming years and Read fewer books on cooking, diet and medical.
I'm not sure how I feel about weighted votes. We are not all essayists and that's okay. How would it even work?
It is easy to create a weighted account. Just create a dozen different accounts and vote a dozen times. I do not vote that often. However, I have two Goodreads accounts, this one that I use most of the time with my iPad/iPhone that uses the same account and one that comes with my Amazon Kindle where voting and group discussions are nearly impossible on that device.
Mod
This problem is universal with all groups, and it is very frustrating
Another group I'm in takes nominations of books from all active members (not fly bys) and then just chooses a random one. We end up with a dozen or so nominations and a popular book will have people seconding the nomination so it gets its name in the hat multiple times, but it is still random and some months have very little participation in the discussion.My own concern here is that there weren't any books in the recent poll that I was interested in, however I don't yet feel comfortable nominating books myself here.
Mod
I find that I often have a knee-jerk reaction to some of the very recent, blockbuster-style books that are chosen (e.g. Peter Hamilton (view spoiler)... but then I review our bookshelf and see that what we've read includes classic authors like Asimov and Clark, modern classics from Banks and Bujold and Butler and Vinge, and even new wave books written by Delany and Bester. and then I let go of my irritation and am suddenly proud again of being a moderator of this group! glass half full I am.
I suppose my main wish is that there was more robust and in-depth discussion of the books chosen, but also as Maggie said, this problem is universal with so many groups.
My idea for a weighted system is based on logic that helps grow the group and increase its value for us, the constituent members of the group. Therefore, these are the factors that in my opinion need be considered foremost:1) Decide what kinds of actions or contributions from members are valued by the group. Reward those actions by assigning more vote power to members who do those actions.
2) In assigning numbers of votes each member will have, keep the assessment system simple enough in principle so that it takes a moderator minutes rather than hours to figure out how many votes each member has.
That's all the factors I can think of right now. I may be overlooking another factor we might later want to consider. If so, someone can make a case for a number three here, or I could later make such a case.
Okay, so going back to #1. What type of contributions to the group do we value so highly that we should give that group member ten votes in the polls?
First, I think a moderator who commits to reading the book that gets voted in and who agrees to lead discussions of said books should automatically get to cast ten votes towards the book of his/her choice in the poll.
Second, I think most of us place a value on posting participation. This shows that the poster is actually reading the book and is willing to engage in discussion and share opinions or information about the book with other members of the group. This should be encouraged and rewarded.
Here is my proposed formula for such participation. In the past year, if number of posts about group reads plus lines of text written about group reads equals 1000 or more, that participant gets ten votes. Clearly that member is reading many of the books and cares to participate. If (# of posts) + (lines of text) = 900-999 in the past year, 9 votes, etc. All the way down to the majority of members here who will get one vote because their (# of posts) + (lines of text) for the past year will be less than 200. They still get to vote and participate in the polls, for whatever joy that brings, it's just their vote won't unduly sway the choice for the more serious participants among us who really care what the result is. Best argument yet, I think this system I propose will encourage greater participation and richer discussion of the works in question.
To be absolutely clear, let me give an example how this works in practice. We hold a poll with five books to choose from. Choice A is a Peter Hamilton book that garners 30 votes total. 24 of those votes are from minimal group participants, so 1 each. Micah votes for it because there's no Phillip Dick book in the line-up this month, 10 votes. The other five members who voted for the Hamilton are light but fairly active participants who have 2, 2, 3, 3, and 5 votes. Thus the Hamilton book, choice A, finishes with 49 votes total.
Choice B is an obscure book that a number of very active participants are interested in reading because the author has been discussed in a thread, or is new and really hot but relatively unknown, or the cover has a scantily clad babe on it (or best yet, all three). It only got 12 votes, but two of these were from moderators who have 10 each, three are from top participants, two more 10s and an 8. The other 7 votes were from people who can cast 1, 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, and 6 votes for 72 votes total.
And so on for choices C, D, and E. Choice B wins the poll even though it had fewer votes in terms of number of people who voted for it: 12 as compared to the 30 who mostly just recognized Peter Hamilton's name. However, I argue that Choice B deserves to win because it will prove to be not only the more interesting choice--big and popular does not always mean more interesting--but it will generate more fun and valuable discussion.
I think my proposal is simple enough that it won't take hours of a moderator's time to tabulate poll results either. (See #2 above.) Often it can be done just by eyeballing who voted for what. The vast majority of voters in the polls will only be getting to cast one vote, and it won't take long to see when that's the case. Only for maybe 10-20% of the voters in a given poll might there actually be a need to count the # of posts + lines of text written about books under discussion for the past year. (If you want to make it even simpler, go back just one month and chop a 0 off the end for # of posts + lines of text requirement.)
I also don't think the awarding of more votes to some members than to others is a sin against democratic values. After all, in the U.S. Senate a Delaware senator is elected by less than 10% the number of votes a California senator will be elected with. Senate races are clearly another weighted vote system that works well. Well, well enough.
Is there really an easy way to keep track of who comments and how much they say? I am a lurker, who loves to read all the comments on the books chosen but who rarely comments, so I am not going to worry whichever way this goes, but ... I think if I was a moderator and this system was proposed, I'd be hustling to start a new thread headed "New Moderator Needed" LOL!
Sure Ann. I can tell in your case at a quick glance how many votes you get under my proposed system. You have three comments total made to this group. Figuring they may each have been as long as 20 lines of text each, and most people average four or five, that still gives you a score of 63, well under the 200 threshold needed to be up to 2 votes. Therefore, yours counts as 1. Since if I were a moderator I pretty much keep up with all the threads, I probably know that you are not a frequent participant and might not even take the eight seconds I just took to look at your profile and see that you have made three posts total to this group.See? Not that much work. I imagine the majority of voters in the polls have approximately your level of participation. So the majority require as much work for a moderator as yours did.
Please don't imagine I want to discourage the infrequent participants from voting. I don't. I think having polls in which they can participate is a great way to draw members in, and I value your one-vote contribution. Think of yourself as like a California voter voting for his/her Senator. It still matters. Your influence on the body is just smaller than another voter's would be under my proposal, and you have the power to change that if you care enough to simply by participating more.
Dan wrote: "Sure Ann. I can tell in your case at a quick glance how many votes you get under my proposed system. You have three comments total made to this group. Figuring they may each have been as long as 20..."While I do not Mod here, I do Mod several groups. As Maggie and Mark stated, this is a universal problem.
What you propose sounds good in theory but would require the Mods to do a shitton of work. They will have to maintain multiple lists and they would be required to hand sort and calculate every single poll.
As volunteers, I don't know how comfortable I feel requesting that kind of additional work.
Dan just does not like the books that the people have chosen.Often it is the lesser of the two books one does not like.
Different sub genres for different folks. Just look at the controversy about the Hugo awards. Yea google it.
While all that math and the General concept is interesting I think this is more appropriate as a strong suggestion to Goodreads. There should be a way for Mods to easily allow for weighted voting to more active participants. The key word is easily.
I've just looked over the first page of past polls and, unless there is a title I don't recognize, this is the first time Hamilton has won or even been in a poll in at least a year and a half. One of the discussions linked to above is from 2013! So Dan I am confused why you think people keep voting Hamilton in. He doesn't seem to be any more frequently chosen than any other author.
I have already pointed out in my last post how my proposal is not much work at all for a moderator. If even that small amount is too much, the formula can be simplified even further to number of posts. That information is one click away by looking at a member's profile and looking on a webpage at a number. Total: eight seconds if you're still on dial-up. This doesn't mean you have to look up every member in the group, just the ones who vote in a poll, and only then if there's a question in the moderator's mind as to how frequently the member posts to our group.Everyone says they recognize a problem. I've proposed a solution that would work. It may not be perfect. I'm only one person's input on a problem, and it remains one person's input so far since no post after mine on the issue has offered constructive criticism, just whines about how much work it would be, how unnecessary it is (despite the wide recognition of the problem), and that it's insufficiently democratic (one person, one vote being the only possible fair solution). My solution can be tweaked to make it easier, fairer, or more rewarding for those exhibiting other behaviors the moderators think would make this a stronger group. That would be fine with me. I really don't want to be the only person thinking about a solution.
Or you can let things continue to go as they are and complain about the universally recognized unsolvable problem, unsolvable because it's easier to complain and do nothing than to think and do something, anything.
So if nothing is done, that's cool. Enjoy seeing few to no comments on the fourth Hamilton book to be selected (this group has selected only Bujold's and Banks's works more times) if that's the best you think can done, or the best you can be bothered to do. I think you're missing an opportunity to innovate in a fresh and bold way that could grow this group into the best science fiction group going, but there's nothing wrong with being just like all the other groups. Right?
Oh, and my proposal is not just because my choice isn't winning the poll. That's a really disingenuous thing to say. That may have been the motivation that originally prompted this line of thinking, but if that were the entire problem, I'd just propose a separate read of the book I'd prefer. Lots of groups do this. No, I'm sincerely making a proposal that I think could substantially enhance the consequentiality of this group and our reading selections and discussions of those selections in all of our lives.
P.S. Lena, I agree with you 100%, but until then....
Dan wrote: "I have already pointed out in my last post how my proposal is not much work at all for a moderator. If even that small amount is too much the formula can be simplified even further to number of pos..."Dan. As someone who has done something quite similar to what you have suggested, let me tell you: it is a SHITTON of work that will require the maintenance of at least one if not several lists. And we are talking about volunteers.
I don't think you should stop brainstorming, but I do think that it would require a lot of work. It's always easy to volunteer someone to do work and claim it is easy - especially if it is something that you hold dear. Maybe it wouldn't be a lot of work for you but it would be for others.
Personally, I don't think that votes should be weighted. That just punishes other group members.
I don't have any suggestions that work within GRs framework. I do not and will not suggest things that require a lot of additional work for the Mods.
I am not complaining at all. I think this group is awesome (no I am not from the west coast). Before this group, I never heard of Iain M Banks and others. In the past before the internet, my knowledge base of science fiction came only from the Science Fiction Book Club. Now my knowledge base comes mostly from Goodreads, Amazon and the internet links from Goodreads. Most of my purchased novels are now are on my Kindle. One person, one vote.
Thank you MrsJoseph for your 29th post to our group, which would qualify you under my proposal to two weighted votes. Total time to determine that: 23 seconds. I had to scroll a bit and expand a section out on YOUR profile page. Nope. Not buying that it's a lot of work. Our polls never have more than a hundred voters and most of these voters can be determined at a glance by a moderator familiar with who is posting in his/her group to be one weighted vote. So only maybe 20-25% of the voters' profiles in a given poll would need to be clicked. Estimated total time commitment for a moderator: 15 minutes.
P.S. Weighted votes don't "punish" anyone. They simply refuse to overreward the minimal participants. But if you can't see this yet from all I've written on the subject so far....
Dan wrote: "Thank you MrsJoseph for your 29th post to our group, which would qualify you under my proposal to two weighted votes. Total time to determine that: 23 seconds. I had to scroll a bit and expand a se..."Dan, now you're being a bit of a douche.
AND this is why I don't think weighted is good a good idea.
One person, one vote.
And with this, I'm going to remove myself from this thread as I dislike the way it's heading.
MrsJoseph wrote: "AND this is why I don't think weighted is good a good idea. One person, one vote."A vote for the status quo from a person who recognizes its flaws, who doesn't mind complaining about those flaws, and who likes to provide reasons why nothing can or should be done to overcome them. This roadblocking is the bane of change agents everywhere!
I do agree with you though. Since I'm not the moderator of this group, I can't change anything, only make a constructive criticism and see where it leads. I think I'll take a break now too.
Not every change is beneficial. Every system has its flaws. There is no such thing as a Win-Win scenario. Life is a zero sum game. Changes will always benefit some at the expense of others. I am not against change, one just has to have a better argument that convinces the majority. Weighted votes tend to favor the few and not the majority. Unless you have a convincing argument that the few can benefit the majority? Is a king better than a democracy? Perhaps, depending on the argumentation and circumstances.
Mickey wrote: "Weighted votes tend to favor the few and not the majority."I think you're defining "majority" in overly conventional terms, which I find a bit surprising from someone who likes science fiction. Your definition is tied to a layer of skin that happens to go around a person. That person then counts as one and is considered perfectly equal with the next person wrapped with a layer of skin. You don't take anything into account other than the fact that they are a person in giving them one vote.
I think considering a person's flesh and the fact they have one body and one brain as entitlement to equal say in a group that they are not equally interested in, equally invested in, or equally contributing to is harmful to the best interests of the group. It's also the root cause of a problem that as I said at the beginning of this thread I suspected would not be solved. That's because it requires use of logic to overcome cultural prejudice.
I define "majority" as amount of time spent and willing to be spent in furtherance of group goals and proposed a system of measuring that majority for the betterment of the participating members of the group, rather than to the betterment of all individuals who clicked the I want to be a member button once and now have equal say no matter how tangential their interest or dedication.
Only an individual person should cast a vote in my view. I also understand others can have a different view on who can vote (weighted or not). Postings and written words do not vote. Even a person who writes nothing and a person who writes often, "should" by my personal sense of morality gets one vote. Like postings, corporations are not people in my personal dictionary, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. There are many different personalities in this world that have different views on life. I prefer to give everyone a say. However, in a group there can be similar identical personalities that can dominate a discussion. The larger a group the greater the views that can be presented.
Some people prefer a smaller like minded group with a narrower definition. I prefer hard science fiction. I do not like fantasy or horror novels. Even though in today's science fiction books there are often a mix of those genres. I also recognize that many people prefer a mix of those genres, horror and fantasy mixed in with their science fiction.
There are groups on Goodreads and other Book clubs that has a mix or with a narrower focus. As for me, I look for what I like and ignore the rest. I do not participate in every discussion, only the ones that interest me.
The last few years I have been more focused on cooking/baking than science fiction. This will change in coming years as I am getting proficient at cooking. Someday I will go back to the math and science with a little fiction.
Power in slogans: One person, One vote.
Got a better one?
Mickey wrote: "Power in slogans: One person, One vote. Got a better one? "
Yeah. Love it or leave it. Bye.
Dan wrote: "Yeah. Love it or leave it. Bye."An excellent slogan!
Hi all. I'm one of the lurkers you guys describe and I've voted a number of times without previously contributing to discussion.To be fair, I do read the synopsis and reviews prior to casting a vote if there is a book I have not heard about.
I will aim to contribute more.
Mod
that's actually what I take away the most from polls here and in other groups... it's an opportunity to get introduced to books I may not have heard of otherwise.
I'm a lurker who doesn't post often on this site. I don't get as much time as I'd like to read SF, although I do read a bit of urban fantasy, but SF was my first love and I will return to it at some stage so I like to check out what's popular. I do look at the poll selections and note ones I'd like to read but do not vote unless I actually intend to read the book if it's selected. I don't think how often you post has any bearing on this. So I would suggest keeping the poll as it is but suggest to people that they only vote if they plan to read the book.
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Are you as unimpressed by the quality of these discussions as I was? If Hamilton is this unread by most of us, why is he now poised to win our fourth poll? Is there any real doubt the same non-interest in actually reading him will prevail as it has in the past? Must we waste a BOTM choice this way, gaining nothing from the experience?
I have a theory as to why unread Hamilton books keep being voted in. We're supposed to like him. His books are big. Bigger is better. People who have no intention of reading the book of the month frequently participate in the poll. It's the only participating the majority of members in this group do. So who do these lazy lurkers vote for? The one author that they might have heard of! The dullness or unreadability of the book in question matters not. They have no intention of reading it anyway. They're just showing off their erudition to themselves by voting for the one name they might recognize, or the one name their smart friend mentioned once to them.
The democracy of every vote being the equal of every other vote is a really lousy system of deciding anything. One only need look at our last presidential election if proof is required. Equal vote democracy often results in undesirable outcomes for those to whom it matters most as well as to those who have sounder judgement.
What's the alternative you ask? I'm so glad you did. I propose weighted votes! Those who actually average 500 words or more per month in this group have a weighted vote of let's say 10. Silent lurkers who vote only in the polls but otherwise never participate get a weighted vote of one. You can do gradations between the two extremes to arrive at a complete weighted poll system.
Now you have my less than perfectly democratic proposal. I realize it has little chance of success. The benighted masses will declare it unfair. Most of us are firmly rooted in our cultural belief of the supposed virtue of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of the majority. So feel free to vote in and then not read the next Peter Hamilton book. I won't. Seeya in September!