In NFD Guardian, there is no way to redo your vote if you press the wrong button. I would like a feature that would allow you to go back and retake your vote in case you make a mistake. Also, an article is only deleted if there is at least one booster vote and one admin vote. In some cases, I’ve seen as many as 5 boosters vote for deletion, but the article still hasn’t been deleted because an admin hasn’t voted yet. Since an admin usually has a double vote (i.e. an admin vote equals two booster votes), what if the rules were amended to where an article would be deleted if at least 3 boosters voted for deletion? The vote count would be equal, since admin+booster equals 3 and booster+booster+booster equals three votes, too.
@IsabelleZita
I see your point on issue two, and I’m coming to understand why certain groups don’t have as many privileges as others, but I really think that most boosters have good judgement and if three or four vote for deletion, admins will likely vote the same way, too. Especially on those articles that are all unanimous deletion votes.
I like the back button idea, kind of similar to what we have in the RCP but it should allow to take back a vote. I can imagine someone slipping up, which may just remove the NFD tag from the article or delete it. About the need for no admin deletion in the guardian, I’m not gonna support it. I think wikiHow was designed this way so that ultimately an admin comes along and reviews an article with lots of votes to make the final decision of truly deleting the article. I don’t think the ability to delete an article should be placed in the hands of a booster or a number of boosters for that matter. I have a slight visual idea for the NFD guardian myself. How about coloring the “Vote to keep” and “vote to delete” buttons differently? Sometimes it can be confusing because they’re close by and virtually identical in shape. Or maybe it is just me?
system
5
@WritingEnthusiast14
@IsabelleZita
1. I support the back button, but agree that a discussion page note can and should be left. 2. I agree with IZ that at least one admin vote should be required to delete an article. Most boosters do have good judgment from what I have seen but I see no reason to eliminate the necessary admin vote, especially when I have noticed many times multiple boosters voting one way, and more than one admin voting another way. I’m not saying that either side is more “right” or “wrong” consistently, but it is a check and balance built into the system that is there for a reason. On a related note, I have a strong feeling that since the other peoples’ votes are visible before you cast your vote, votes are being swayed based on who has already voted and how they voted. I have previously voiced my opinion that votes should not be shown until after one has cast his or her vote…since it is visible, it is likely to impact how one votes, if nothing else on a subconscious level, which shouldn’t be the case, it should be based on the policy and how it applies to the article in question—not how anyone else has already voted.
Well, I started this thread mainly to discuss the back button, and the voting issue isn’t a very big deal, but it’s something I thought I should put out there. The main reason I mentioned that was for added efficiency, so bad articles could be deleted faster. Like I said earlier, though, I didn’t expect it to really be considered. @Isorhythmic
You make a good point on the votes not being visible. I would support that.
Lojjik
7
I think showing the current votes (before you cast yours) can easily lead to “groupthink”. To eliminate this, other users’ votes should be hidden. Just plain psychological fact… very rarely do people vote by their own decision. They tend to just go with whatever the group has decided.
I would support the vote hiding. Sometimes, seeing so many people vote for keeping/deleting intimidates you (in my experience) and you feel like you have to vote that way, too. I think hiding the votes would encourage people to really use their own judgement.
Marina
9
If you see a user that you think is more experienced making a call, you tend to sway their way. Occasionally when having discussions or debates in the forums you see this kind of thought process as well. I think some new boosters when trying out the tool have actually been looking at the way their mentors or experienced users vote as an educational tool for themselves? For example, when they see their mentor or an experienced user voting one way, they not only vote similarly, but they also take the vote as fact. They, then make similar calls in the future. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing all the time because often the older user is actually correct. But I think that if votes are hidden, we might need to make sure that new boosters are getting the training they need because they won’t be able to use this as a resource. And just throwing it out there, Picture Patrol doesn’t show the votes and I think that’s resulting in voting that is much fairer. Then again, hidden voting is much more important in PP. This is because PP consists of a lot of new users using the tool. Because a lot of them tend to work quantity over quality due to lack of experience, hidden votes are VERY important there. So we HAVE tried this out and it IS working.
system
10
Exactly. This should really be considered.
Lojjik
11
They could still see the votes once they’ve cast their own.
system
12
I would rather support vote hiding over everything else regarding the NFD Guardian.
I wholeheartedly support hiding previous votes from the articles until after your vote has been cast. I believe this would result in a more unbiased evaluation of the articles. Maybe there could be a learning tool that worked just like NFD Guardian, only on set of articles that had already been through the NFD Guardian. New boosters might appreciate the ability to practice and compare their judgements with more experienced boosters or administrators before placing votes for real.
@Isorhythmic
good point! How about we hide the usernames and just display " There have been X votes to delete. There are X votes to keep." ?
Lojjik
16
No, even the presence of a vote count will affect the way people vote. Conformity is a very real thing.
Why was it chosen that votes are displayed?
Hmm. Okay @SudoKing
. How about: “There have been votes to keep.” Let’s just display that there are votes to keep, without revealing the numbers or who voted for deletion or against it. I think Votes to Keep are kind of important. What’s your take?
Whenever you have a visibility of what has been voted for, you’ll tend to lean that way too. You could show the total number of votes overall, since that wouldn’t really affect your decision.
Jamie
20
I think vote anonymity wouldn’t be a bad thing. Although for those new to the NFD guardian tool this might not be so helpful. I learnt by myself through seeing what kind of content was kept and deleted. If I wasn’t sure I wouldn’t vote with the majority,I’d just skip. I think what I have written below may be more helpful, especially to those just learning the NFD guardian. Opinions would be appreciated. If there’s one feature I think would be beneficial would be to have separate “discussion page” within the app where voters can leave a note that may spark up ideas for future edits or simply letting others know why they voted this way. I think this would be good in not so straight forward cases. Of course there is the argument that one can simply edit the article themselves and wait to see if others join in but pro-active collaboration is what we’re all about, right?
