About our rule requiring 10+ posts to vote in polls

Chris OConnor · Thu May 29, 2008 10:19 am

About our rule requiring 10+ posts to vote in polls

Recently someone complained that the rule requiring everyone to have 10 or more forum posts in order to vote in our book polls is not welcoming to newcomers. I'm going to take this opportunity to demonstrate why we have this rule and why we might need to increase the post requirement from 10 to 25.

In the most recent non-fiction poll "Your Inner Fish" was the clear winner. And everyone that cast votes for this book is currently participating in the discussion EXCEPT for the 1 member with 10 posts or close to 10 posts. "Bolsen1" cast 3 votes for "Your Inner Fish" indicating a strong preference for this book, yet this individual never again made a post on the BookTalk forums. Bolsen1 has a total of 11 posts. His or her vote was cast on April 22, 2008. This was 37 days ago. Where is he or she now that the winner has been chosen?

Nobody should feel obligated to post or interact more than they desire. BookTalk is supposed to a fun place to go for intelligent conversation. But when we're trying to select books that we'd enjoy reading and discussing together we should probably not give inactive members a say in our selection process. Bolsen1 slid in under the radar. He or she voted and we accepted the vote. But what if the poll were extremely close with 2 books competing for the 1 winning slot. Bolsen1 could sway the vote, yet never even return to the BookTalk forums.

In the poll the end result was:

Predictably Irrational: 9 votes
Your Inner Fish: 12 votes

If we were to count Bolsen1 Your Inner Fish would have had a total of 15 votes. Hopefully you can see how much influence a transient member can have on the direction our community takes...if we allow it to happen. I am suggesting we tighten up our rules for polls.

I hope this all makes sense. After 6 years of running book polls I've learned what works and what doesn't work. Allowing just anybody to cast a vote is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not trying to pick on Bolsen1. This is about simple probability. Members who have a track record of being actively involved in our forums have a higher probability of participating in the future. Members that have recently joined and have next to no posts have a higher probability of not participating or even returning to the forums.

My goal is not to be too strict. But I have a responsibility to those members that love the book discussion element of BookTalk. We have to maintain the integrity of our polling process.

Let's now look at the "Official Poll - June & July Fiction" thread. This is where we selected "Exile and the Kingdom."

Michela joined BookTalk on March 21, 2008. He or she has a total of 1 post on our forums in the 2+ months of being a member. And where was the 1 post? You got it. Michela cast 2 votes for Exile and 1 vote for American Short Stories. Has Michela ever posted again? Not a single time. Aren't you now happy we don't count some votes? Maybe Michela will join this discussion soon. I hope so. But odds are against it. This comes from experience.

dbooks has a total of 12 posts on our forums. He or she cast 3 votes for Best American Short Stories. This person has never again made a single post on our forums.

I'm considering increasing the posting requirement to 25 or more posts. Any opinions on this proposed rule change?

Constance963 · Thu May 29, 2008 10:30 am

Looking at your examples Chris, it sounds like 25 might be a better option. I've been here for a little while and didn't vote because I knew with life situations right now that I would not be able to participate in the actual book discussions. I think people who have been here get to know each other and may be more likely to do as I have. If you don't know anyone, you may not really care if you vote and never come back again so it does make sense.

Ophelia · Thu May 29, 2008 2:48 pm

Chris:

The examples you give are convincing, I'll second a change to 25 posts.

Chris OConnor · Fri May 30, 2008 12:37 am

I appreciate the feedback. :smile:

Penelope · Fri May 30, 2008 11:52 am

Chris, I haven't ever belonged to any other forum so I'll use that as my excuse.

When I come to the BT Website, as I do check in on most days....I usually look at the recently updated threads......yellow escalator on the right hand side of my screen.....and if anything catches my eye...I just jump in. I never am sure whether I might be being intrusive....but no one has given me the feeling that my presence might not be required.

When I saw the thread - about 10 posts to vote in polls, I thought it was about the jolly little polls underneath the recent posts escalator. The fun ones...like whether you want to be buried or cremated......SO.... I thought you were being a bit nit-picking in demanding 10 posts to vote!!!!

Now that I realise that it is the issue of what books to read......I understand why you are concerned. Sorry!!! My mistake.

I just thought I would let you know this on behalf of any other poor souls who are not too familiar with Forums and their workings. I think this one is great.....as you know. In fact, I have been so charmed with the general conversation.....that I haven't been reading the books. I will remedy this. :oops:

Chris OConnor · Fri May 30, 2008 5:11 pm

The poll block you see in the right sidebar doesn't include all polls created in all forums. I have it programmed to only grab the newest polls in the "General Discussion Forums" and "Special Forums" sections. I didn't want book polls to ever appear over there so I hope that never happens.

I think I'll edit the rules page so that it is clearly stated that members much have 25+ posts to vote in book selection polls. All the other polls are fair game for all registered members. And it would be nice if people got creative and created more weird polls! Polls can be a lot of fun.

Robert Tulip · Fri May 30, 2008 6:00 pm

So, the phylogeny of the internet evolves - 25 is a good step to guard against the disruptive troll, the fraudulent 'conversation with myself' sock-puppet, and now, the seagull, who flies in and squarks shits and leaves (+ panda comma). I wonder if any sock-puppets delegitimised the voting process for Your Inner Fish? I hope not as it is a wonderful book, which I encourage all to read and comment on. :smile:

Chris OConnor · Fri May 30, 2008 6:16 pm

Sock puppets are always a problem on forums. Damn they're annoying.I just installed a special mod that helps identify duplicate accounts coming from the same or similar IP addresses. I'll soon start searching for this form of dishonesty. I'd like to think it has yet to rear it's ugly head around here.

BabyBlues · Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:53 pm

Chris or Robert,

Please forgive my ignorance. I am newer to the forum and was just wondering what a sock puppet is?

Chris OConnor · Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:10 pm

I'm sure you have seen someone put a sock on their hand and make it look like the sock is a puppet to which they can converse. In reality there is only one person involved in this discussion. The sock puppet is really an illusion created intentionally by a human being usually for entertainment purposes.

On forums like BookTalk.org there are unethical people that purposely create a 2nd or 3rd account and pretend that these other accounts are really different people. This is a technique employed to cheat on polls, such as our book polls, or to fabricate support for an argument. It is really the creation of imaginary friends.

Imagine if FuzzyBunny500 and MeatMissle are really the same person using 2 different accounts...

[hr]

Joe6Pack: Your argument is not valid because of X, Y and Z

FuzzyBunny500: Wrong. My logic is impeccable and I have a bigger brain than you. You're clearly in the wrong. Does anyone else have any comments?

MeatMissle: i been lurking and waching this argument for the past several days and at this point I just have to add my 2 cents. Joe6Pack you R WRONG! I have to agree with Fuzzy 100%. In addition to his argument making more cents it is obvious he is the better debater and all around better human being.

[hr]

I am purposely spelling words wrong and using a different writing style, because this is what sock puppets do when they are trying to trick the audience into believing there are multiple people controlling the multiple accounts, when in reality one person is controlling two or more accounts.