DECLINED - [FEATURE] Allow us to vote

[+MAntunes]

One of the most important details for user participation in the User Voice's Feedback area was the possibility to vote anonymously and, when needed, redistribute votes by several ideas/suggestions.

 

In fact, most if not all democracies trusts on anonymous voting.

 

I think that not everyone has the mood, self confidence or even the time to argue in the Foruns.

 

My suggestion is to to have polls in this Geocaching.com Website area and the ability to change/redistribute votes as we had in the User's Voice Feedback area.

 

To promote participation in the themes discussed here and to have a clear picture about the suggestion's acceptance level.

[+Lil Devil]

Groundspeak is not a democracy.

[+frinklabs]

I suspect that we "vote" by discussing these issues in this forum; topics with a lot of activity will be examined more closely than those with none at all.

 

For example, an issue that would be incredibly simple to fix on their servers by simply moving a close-url tag to the right several characters has not been submitted because no one is discussing it:

 

[FEATURE] Expand links on WAP site

 

(aka please go reply to my thread so that they'll fix it )

[+MAntunes]

Groundspeak is not a democracy.

 

Of course, not. I was just pointing an example.

 

I suspect that we "vote" by discussing these issues in this forum; topics with a lot of activity will be examined more closely than those with none at all.

 

...

 

 

Yes, that's true. But with the ability to vote, I guess the participation would be much bigger and clarifying about the community's preferences.

 

More. It could be implemented a kind of 'negative' voting if authors of the ideas/suggestion allows a two options voting with a 'Yes' and 'No' for the suggestion. That would be an enhancement to what we had in Users Voice solution.

[+larryc43230]

More. It could be implemented a kind of 'negative' voting if authors of the ideas/suggestion allows a two options voting with a 'Yes' and 'No' for the suggestion. That would be an enhancement to what we had in Users Voice solution.

I totally agree that, if some sort of voting or polling capability were added, it should allow for both "Yes" and "No" votes. That's one reason I almost never got involved with the Users Voice board. As far as I'm concerned, tallying a bunch of "Yes" votes means nothing unless those votes are compared with "No" votes.

 

--Larry

[+paleolith]

The huge problem with such polls is that the responders are self-selected. A self-selected poll means nothing. And I do not use the word "nothing" lightly: it means nothing. Reid's Second Law of Statistics: Never Underestimate the Power of Selection.

 

I much prefer the way GS is doing it now. They appear to be listening to the informed voices who post here with information and ideas. But we cannot speak for the 99% who never participate in the forums, and who are almost certainly quite different from us in many ways. The very fact of posting here, even reading here, makes us unrepresentative of the community. And the community did not elect us to speak for them.

 

As a result, using polls here would actually make geocaching less democratic. Not that it's ever been democratic, but still.

 

So I prefer that GS continue listening to us and attempting to decide what's best for the entire community. They won't always be right, not by a long shot, and I'll be here helping to hold their feet to the fire. But they'll be right more often than our votes would be.

 

Edward

[+BBosman]

I think a basic yes and no doesn't cover it.

 

I personally often prefer a third option: "I wouldn't mind this feature, but there are others that I like more".

 

If there are only yes and no options might slightly increase participation but it will also skew the results.

 

I'd almost always abstain from voting because of the inability to prioritize features. That was one of the nicer features of UserVoice as you had a limited amount of votes which would give pseudo prioritization.

[+larryc43230]

The huge problem with such polls is that the responders are self-selected. A self-selected poll means nothing. And I do not use the word "nothing" lightly: it means nothing. Reid's Second Law of Statistics: Never Underestimate the Power of Selection.

 

I much prefer the way GS is doing it now. They appear to be listening to the informed voices who post here with information and ideas. But we cannot speak for the 99% who never participate in the forums, and who are almost certainly quite different from us in many ways. The very fact of posting here, even reading here, makes us unrepresentative of the community. And the community did not elect us to speak for them.

 

As a result, using polls here would actually make geocaching less democratic. Not that it's ever been democratic, but still.

 

So I prefer that GS continue listening to us and attempting to decide what's best for the entire community. They won't always be right, not by a long shot, and I'll be here helping to hold their feet to the fire. But they'll be right more often than our votes would be.

 

Edward

While all this is true to some extent (I do NOT agree that self-selected polls are completely useless), if any voting is allowed, allowing "Yes" and "No" votes is a vast improvement over allowing only "Yes" votes. The system that was used in the Users Voice board reminded me of "voting" in the old Soviet Union. Your only choices were either voting "Yes" or not voting at all.

 

--Larry

Edited November 22, 2011 by larryc43230

[+MAntunes]

I think a basic yes and no doesn't cover it.

 

I personally often prefer a third option: "I wouldn't mind this feature, but there are others that I like more".

 

If there are only yes and no options might slightly increase participation but it will also skew the results.

 

I'd almost always abstain from voting because of the inability to prioritize features. That was one of the nicer features of UserVoice as you had a limited amount of votes which would give pseudo prioritization.

 

A person who votes in a poll could also make a post saying something more - explaining why he/she voted, driving other's attention to what he/she thinks it's important in the suggestion, etc, etc...

 

A 'neutral' vote only makes sense if the vote is compulsory. If one "...wouldn't mind this feature, but there are others that I like more", just don't vote to it and vote/posts in the others that better fullfills his preferences.

 

Those who don't feel comfortable participating in the forums but only read them would have the option to express their preferences by the anonymous vote.

 

About the prioritization, yes, it would be great if some kind of quota, to the total votes one can distribute, can be implement. That would be a huge improvement! But if it is not technically possible, I think it shouldn't prevent GS from taking this step forward - I really believe that this voting would improve participation and this can only be positive.

 

ps: This voting/polling feature I'm requesting doesn't applies to the "BUG" type of posts - I forgot to mention that in my OP.

[cezanne]

I really believe that this voting would improve participation and this can only be positive.

 

Perhaps positive from the point of view of some cachers, but not from the point of view of Groundspeak. Groundspeak has been

unhappy with the old feedback system and explained their reasons. Building up the same or a very similar sort of system than in the old

system will not male them happy either.

 

Cezanne

[+larryc43230]

I really believe that this voting would improve participation and this can only be positive.

 

Perhaps positive from the point of view of some cachers, but not from the point of view of Groundspeak. Groundspeak has been

unhappy with the old feedback system and explained their reasons. Building up the same or a very similar sort of system than in the old

system will not male them happy either.

 

Cezanne

I never got the impression that Groundspeak had any problem with a system that allows users to vote on issues and suggestions. The complaints I've read about were the particular implementation, and problems with administering the system.

 

--Larry

[+StarBrand]

I think honest discussion is far more useful than any kind of simplistic voting.

[+MAntunes]

I think honest discussion is far more useful than any kind of simplistic voting.

 

One can use either one... or both.

[+larryc43230]

I think honest discussion is far more useful than any kind of simplistic voting.

 

One can use either one... or both.

I vote for both.

 

--Larry

[cezanne]

I really believe that this voting would improve participation and this can only be positive.

 

Perhaps positive from the point of view of some cachers, but not from the point of view of Groundspeak. Groundspeak has been

unhappy with the old feedback system and explained their reasons. Building up the same or a very similar sort of system than in the old

system will not male them happy either.

 

Cezanne

I never got the impression that Groundspeak had any problem with a system that allows users to vote on issues and suggestions. The complaints I've read about were the particular implementation, and problems with administering the system.

 

--Larry

 

My comment was with respect increasing participation, not with respect to the voting.

From reading this

http://www.geocaching.com/feedback/

one clearly gets the impression that too many ideas have been introduced in the old feedback system and that the participation was too high.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 22, 2011 by cezanne

[+MAntunes]

I think that the 'negative' part of the poll - those votes on the 'No' option to an idea/suggestion - would help Groundspeak by separating suggestions that really has an expressive support from the community from those which are supported only by a small group of persons. And thus, one wouldn't expect a prompt response from Groundspeak only because has posted, or voted on, an idea/suggestion.

 

Of course if an idea/suggestion gathers a great deal of support from the community, with votes and/or comments, Groundspeak would be expected to implement it or explain why it can't be implemented.

[+Mr Kaswa]

this is from an email notification about a feedback item/topic/story/whatever they wish to call it.....

 

Ask us before making changes

(No Status) → Declined

 

With all due respect to the global geocaching community, including those who help us pay the bills by financially supporting the site, we will not be submitting future website changes to a community vote.

 

As we move forward, we plan to continue innovating. We will definitely make mistakes but we believe that it is part of the natural innovative process. Regardless of what we do, some people will always argue that the newest feature, update, etc., is a step in the wrong direction and perhaps even foolish or stupid.

 

That said, we reserve the right to do our best to surprise you in a positive way and, fortunately, we can always go back and adjust what we've done to make it better.

 

We know that we have work to do and we are excited to do it. We want you to use geocaching.com and we'll continue doing our best to keep you here. Please keep the feedback coming. Thanks.

Bryan

 

Bryan

Admin, Geocaching

[+MAntunes]

Maybe that answer was because what was being considered wasn't a voting system where one can express his opinion by supporting the suggestion or against it anonymously.

 

A solution like this - the poll with 'yes' and 'no', along with the posts - would improve participation, in the ideas, by having persons supporting it and others saying 'no thanks' in a simple and anonymous way. That was what I meant when I said "a clear picture about the suggestion's acceptance level" in the OP.

 

I think this kind of interaction, between suggestion's authors and the community, would lead authors to better evaluate their suggestions because they must expect not only positive votes but also votes against their suggestions.

 

That, I think, won't increase the number of suggestions but, maybe, the quality of suggestions that Groundspeak will have to deal with.

[cezanne]

I think that the 'negative' part of the poll - those votes on the 'No' option to an idea/suggestion - would help Groundspeak by separating suggestions that really has an expressive support from the community from those which are supported only by a small group of persons. And thus, one wouldn't expect a prompt response from Groundspeak only because has posted, or voted on, an idea/suggestion.

 

Of course if an idea/suggestion gathers a great deal of support from the community, with votes and/or comments, Groundspeak would be expected to implement it or explain why it can't be implemented.

 

I think that's exactly what they want to avoid. They apparently do not want to deal with complaints like why do you implement the feature for which only 400 people voted and not the feature for which 6000 have voted.

 

What you suggest fits well to a community project which gc.com never has been.

 

Cezanne

[+BBosman]

A 'neutral' vote only makes sense if the vote is compulsory. If one "...wouldn't mind this feature, but there are others that I like more", just don't vote to it and vote/posts in the others that better fullfills his preferences.

It would then be in my interest to always vote 'No' on those feature requests, as that would marginally increase the changes of the ones I vote 'Yes' on to be considered to be implemented. A 'neutral' option doesn't solve that entirely, but it would give me the option to be heard without endorsing or down-voting that idea.

[AZcachemeister]

It seems we are back to the old system of discussion of an issue.

If you like the OPs idea for a feature, post your agreement.

If you think it's pointless, say so.

If you have a workaround that might solve a 'problem' until TPTB make an update to fix it, show us how to do it.

[+MAntunes]

They apparently do not want to deal with complaints like why do you implement the feature for which only 400 people voted and not the feature for which 6000 have voted.

 

 

Maybe it would be more, "in the feature which gathers only a difference of 400 votes between 'Yes' and 'No' and not the feature which resulted in a difference of 6000 votes."

 

And thus,

 

It would then be in my interest to always vote 'No' on those feature requests, as that would marginally increase the changes of the ones I vote 'Yes' on to be considered to be implemented. A 'neutral' option doesn't solve that entirely, but it would give me the option to be heard without endorsing or down-voting that idea.

 

Yes, you are right. If someone wishes feature A and not feature B, a positive vote in A and a negative vote in B would be more effective than just voting for A.

 

About 'neutral' votes, as the option to make a post still is possible along with the vote, one can always say "I'm not voting because...", but, yes, if the author of the suggestion wishes to include a neutral option together with the 'Yes' and 'No' options, it would be possible.

[cezanne]

They apparently do not want to deal with complaints like why do you implement the feature for which only 400 people voted and not the feature for which 6000 have voted.

 

 

Maybe it would be more, "in the feature which gathers only a difference of 400 votes between 'Yes' and 'No' and not the feature which resulted in a difference of 6000 votes."

 

 

What I meant is even when you have two scenarios where one has 400 supporters and none against it and the other has 6000 (or even 10000) supporters and noone against it, Groundspeak apparently does not want to argue why they implement the scenario with only 400 supporters.

What I wrote about has no connection to whether there are yes and no votes or just yes votes.

 

Cezanne

[Moun10Bike]

Thank you for the suggestion, but voting is not a feature that fits well with this forum setting.

[+The HERB5]

We had voting and discussion on the Feedback site.

 

However, we were giving the WRONG answers.

[+Lil Devil]

We had voting and discussion on the Feedback site.

You still have discussion, which is a form of voting

[+frinklabs]

If there was voting, then my WAP issue might actually be fixed.

 

Since it is such an obvious fix, there is no need for discussion, so the thread sinks to the bottom of the barrel.

 

What I am really wanting is for someone else to go in there and agree or disagree or SOMETHING so I don't have to shamelessly bump my own thread.

 

My last question (Am I the only one who uses the WAP page?) was not rhetorical.

 

So yeah, have a go: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=285087

 

Thanks!

Edited November 30, 2011 by frinklabs

[+GeoBain]

If there was voting, then my WAP issue might actually be fixed.

 

Since it is such an obvious fix, there is no need for discussion, so the thread sinks to the bottom of the barrel.

 

What I am really wanting is for someone else to go in there and agree or disagree or SOMETHING so I don't have to shamelessly bump my own thread.

 

My last question (Am I the only one who uses the WAP page?) was not rhetorical.

 

So yeah, have a go: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=285087

 

Thanks!

Lack of replies could be viewed as a vote much like the multitude of ideas on the other feedback that never received more than the 3 votes and one post that the author gave it when posting.

[+DanPan]

Thank you for the suggestion, but voting is not a feature that fits well with this forum setting.

If we can not vote, how does Groundspeak prioritize the implementation of the new features?

 

Why not enable the "Topic Poll/Vote" feature on this forum?

 

Depending on where in the forum you are posting your message at, you may have the option to add a poll that other members can vote in. If so, you will see a " Manage Topic Poll" button. Click on this to configure the poll.

 

 

How to create Poll:

 

Vote!

 

View Results:

Edited December 3, 2011 by DanPan

[+wuliwup]

In the old forums there was the possibility to vote for a topic. I think this was very useful and a good tool for the community to prioritize topics, wishes or bugs. This should also be possible in the new Geocachaing.com forums. This could be for example a "Like/Dislike" button (comparable voting for "Challenges".)

I must say, I miss the old forums!

[Moun10Bike]

I'm merging this into the existing thread concerning this topic.

[+Ambient_Skater]

Groundspeak doesn't like polls. IIRC the feature used to exist, was later deprecated by turning the button into a transparent 1x1 image, then finally removed altogether in the forum software update.