Strange, but true!

[ddaines]

There seems to be a rather strange phenomenon going on with regards to G.F. suggestions, we get a list of subjects to choose from and cast a vote for, yet some still get no vote! Why?

Surely the suggestor should cast a vote for his/her suggestion to get the ball rolling even if it gets no more votes (but it might encourage others to vote as people are like sheep so I've heard and will follow others), otherwise it seems to be a waste of a suggestion and pretty pointless.

Oh well, now't as strange as folk!

[twrich]

Agreed! and a comment on the potential look of the piece, or a brief description of why the figure was suggested would be nice. Perhaps some are content to let their initial suggestion thread stand as their communication to the group for the month, but I've noticed that after suggestions have a compelling comment written about them, they tend to pick up votes. And we all know that any idea that makes it to the second round of voting has a chance to win!

[Hammershield]

Nothing strange about it, I think. It is all about weighing a suggestions chance to win against another suggestion which has already picked up votes. I often find myself abandonning a favored suggestion like this in favor of a second best alternative, esp. if it is in a close tie with a third not-so-favored alternative. After all, you only get 12 chances a year.

[Theobald]

That's exactly how I would have explained that phenomenon, Hammershield

[barliman]

Hammershield has it exactly right - I too have abandoned my own suggestions on occasion when there's nothing to be gained from wasting a vote on them. After all, if one comes to vote after a dozen or more votes have been cast it's often already clear which figures WON'T win and which figures stand a good chance of getting somewhere, so tactical voting of this kind makes perfect sense to me. What I really can't understand is someone who squanders a vote on a figure that's already ten or twenty votes behind the leaders and clearly has no chance of coming in the first three, or of winning.

[Axel]

To make it fair and unbiased, the results should only show after voting had ended. As it is, timing has a big influence upon the outcome.

[Axel]

I just realized that giving the option to swap the vote until the voting ends will also work. Thus, those who voted for options that loose out at the end can make their vote count at the finish.
I am just not sure wether this poll-system offers that option.

[Theobald]

Axel, you are absolutely right ... the fact that you can watch the development of a running vote influences voting quite a lot! This is said and explained in other entries in this thread - and I have to admit that I act likewise.
I don't know why I myself didn't see it as being that obvious.
To me this means:

First, some Karma for you, Axel.

Second, I would like to appeal that the present rules about voting should be changed, based on Axel's criticism. That means to vote by secret ballot until a fixed date. This seems to be a common practice in most of our democratic societies.
On the other hand it does not mean that the "voting-thread" here has to be changed entirely - as I really do like to read the comments of other members about their decisions and favourites.
Just the information about the relevant polling should be hidden.

What do you all think of this?

[Ori]

Sure! Hidden polls would be better. But maybe the first round could be public.

On the other hand, a final public vote with just two contenders will also be a good idea.

[twrich]

These are some good ideas! How about it Michael? Sometimes I vote before all comments are in, and someone make a very persuasive agrument for a different character. Should I not vote until the last minute, since I can't change my vote? If members could change their vote, at least in the first round, perhaps we'd have more participation.