The Index Reloaded --- (Index of the Giant's Comments II)

[Ron Miel]

Here's a radical idea - no voting at all. ThePhantasm is the curator of the thread. Let him choose what to include.

[Yendor]

Here's a radical idea - no voting at all. ThePhantasm is the curator of the thread. Let him choose what to include.

I, for one, welcome our phantasmal overlord.

[Jasdoif]

Here's a radical idea - no voting at all. ThePhantasm is the curator of the thread. Let him choose what to include.

Well, he kinda already does; he is the one who edits stuff into the first post, after all

More seriously though, he's expressed unwillingness in that regard:

So again, I'm not interested in this being ThePhantasm's Organization of the Giant's Comments Thread. Frankly, that wouldn't even be that useful in my opinion. In this format that we have, everyone gets to have a say about what's useful, how to organize stuff, what should be included / removed, etc. Sometimes that means stuff gets included that people don't want in there, sometimes that means stuff gets kept out that people want in. But that all comes with the territory of a community project. Sometimes you have to defer to others, because its a community project.

[martianmister]

It's pointless to include "Hit the head", and Bandana's panel doesn't need explanation.

[Ted The Bug]

Here's a radical idea - no voting at all. ThePhantasm is the curator of the thread. Let him choose what to include.

Aye. I casually check on this thread sometimes to see if there's anything interesting that was said, and usually I'm just hit in the face with a wall of votes. It'd be nicer to just see whether there are any interesting new tidbits about the story up.

[Flame of Anor]

As I have explained thrice now, "voting by PM" does not in any way equal "secret voting". Stop misrepresenting the opposition just to make your point.

As long as their votes are posted by the curator in a single post, their voices are heard without cluttering the thread.

Such a system would not be secret in hindsight, true. But during the voting period itself, it absolutely could be. Let's say ThePhantasm calls a vote and then doesn't return to the forum for a day or two. In that space of time, the voting would be proceeding but no one would know with what tendency. People who looked in on the thread during that time would not notice that the vote was very close, if it were so, and thus might not vote as they would otherwise have done.

Now, this isn't a terrible flaw--with (eventual) posting of vote tallies, I would, a bit reluctantly, go along with PM voting--but it is a flaw. I still think that infrequent (not more often than monthly), in-thread votes are the happy medium.

P.S. I agree that we don't need the most recent quote.

[Procyonpi]

Here's a radical idea - no voting at all. ThePhantasm is the curator of the thread. Let him choose what to include.

For the record, I like this idea.

[137beth]

New quote from the Giant:

Bandana's appearance in panel six, giving orders to a random crewman, was to break up the monotony of Elan reading the letter. Also, "hit the head" is nautical slang for using the bathroom.

I'm for inclusion. Not because of the 'hit the head' clarification, but because it explains part of the Giant's development process. He explains why he put that panel there!
So I'm for including it.

[Kalmegil]

I'm for inclusion. Not because of the 'hit the head' clarification, but because it explains part of the Giant's development process. He explains why he put that panel there!
So I'm for including it.

I agree with this.

[Silver Swift]

Such a system would not be secret in hindsight, true. But during the voting period itself, it absolutely could be. Let's say ThePhantasm calls a vote and then doesn't return to the forum for a day or two. In that space of time, the voting would be proceeding but no one would know with what tendency. People who looked in on the thread during that time would not notice that the vote was very close, if it were so, and thus might not vote as they would otherwise have done.

That's a feature, not a bug.

[Peelee]

I'm for inclusion. Not because of the 'hit the head' clarification, but because it explains part of the Giant's development process. He explains why he put that panel there!
So I'm for including it.

Not wanting several strips of a single image isn't so much "Giant development process" as it is "basic comic strip theory."

[Kalmegil]

Not wanting several strips of a single image isn't so much "Giant development process" as it is "basic comic strip theory."

And yet, many comicists violate this "basic" theory frequently.

[Peelee]

And yet, many comicists violate this "basic" theory frequently.

A.) Just because it's a comic doesn't mean it's a good comic.
2.) As Mr. Watterson showed in the above strip, it can still totally be done well. Knowing the rules before you can break them and all that.

[Kalmegil]

A.) Just because it's a comic doesn't mean it's a good comic.
2.) As Mr. Watterson showed in the above strip, it can still totally be done well. Knowing the rules before you can break them and all that.

What does that have to do with the fact that the Giant made a post revealing one of his (admittedly minor) creative choices, and some of us want posts about his creative choices to be added to the index?

[Jasdoif]

That's a feature, not a bug.

That would depend on the goal, I think. If the intent is to reduce the number of casual voters, it would be a feature; if the intent is to increase participation on close votes, it would be a bug.

I'd rather have more voters, myself.

[The Recreator]

Isn't there a way we can insert polls into this message board? Either directly into the posts or as an off-site link? That would cut down on post clutter considerably while keeping the results visible. Individual votes might not be labeled, but I think we can trust each other not to stuff the ballot box… right?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Isn't there a way we can insert polls into this message board? Either directly into the posts or as an off-site link? That would cut down on post clutter considerably while keeping the results visible. Individual votes might not be labeled, but I think we can trust each other not to stuff the ballot box… right?

No, polls have been disabled in this board. Only mods can use them, and they don't, except in some very rare occasions.

I have tried and failed to understand why the absence of immediate updates to the list of votes would impact participation, but assuming this is a problem (and I don't think it is), there are plenty of people who have very fast response times - me, for example - that could be given the subcurator job of keeping up with the votes and updating the table as fast as humanly possible.

Grey Wolf

[Flame of Anor]

I have tried and failed to understand why the absence of immediate updates to the list of votes would impact participation

I'll explain again. Say you're a casual sometimes-voter and you see that the thread is voting on a quote. You think that quote should be included, but it's not hugely important to you. If you only see (in the PM-vote version) that there is a vote, and not the totals (because they haven't been updated yet) you might well think "Oh, my vote probably wouldn't matter either way anyway" and not vote, especially as sending a PM is slightly more work. But if you see (in the thread-vote version) that the score is, say, 11 to 12, you would realize that your vote has a very good chance of influencing the outcome, and thus would vote. This means that, in controversial votes, we would get a larger sample size of the forum.

[orrion]

I'll explain again. Say you're a casual sometimes-voter and you see that the thread is voting on a quote. You think that quote should be included, but it's not hugely important to you. If you only see (in the PM-vote version) that there is a vote, and not the totals (because they haven't been updated yet) you might well think "Oh, my vote probably wouldn't matter either way anyway" and not vote, especially as sending a PM is slightly more work. But if you see (in the thread-vote version) that the score is, say, 11 to 12, you would realize that your vote has a very good chance of influencing the outcome, and thus would vote. This means that, in controversial votes, we would get a larger sample size of the forum.

What's the difference between that and 6 casual sometimes-voters coming into the thread and seeing that the current vote stands at 6 to 12 and having the same "Oh, my vote probably wouldn't matter either way anyway" thought?

[DeliaP]

What's the difference between that and 6 casual sometimes-voters coming into the thread and seeing that the current vote stands at 6 to 12 and having the same "Oh, my vote probably wouldn't matter either way anyway" thought?

The presumption is that when there is a clear majority of votes going one way, that the preferences of the casual sometimes voters aren't going to divide up so radically differently to the already expressed votes as to change things, I guess.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But if you see (in the thread-vote version) that the score is, say, 11 to 12

A casual poster is unlikely to come to the thread and start counting votes in order to decide if he needs to vote, especially if at least 23 votes have been cast, probably over a span of at least two pages. Since people do and have changed their votes, counting is also effectively useless unless you can also keep 20 screen names in your head, and remember who voted what. So, in fact, in your scenario the sheer abundance of posts is far more likely to dissuade a casual poster, who can't even find the quote being voted upon, than any imaginary "oh, the result won't be affected by my vote anyway".

Grey Wolf

[orrion]

A casual poster is unlikely to come to the thread and start counting votes in order to decide if he needs to vote, especially if at least 23 votes have been cast, probably over a span of at least two pages. Since people do and have changed their votes, counting is also effectively useless unless you can also keep 20 screen names in your head, and remember who voted what. So, in fact, in your scenario the sheer abundance of posts is far more likely to dissuade a casual poster, who can't even find the quote being voted upon, than any imaginary "oh, the result won't be affected by my vote anyway".

Grey Wolf

I know I don't bother to count votes.

[Mightymosy]

New quote from the Giant:

Bandana's appearance in panel six, giving orders to a random crewman, was to break up the monotony of Elan reading the letter. Also, "hit the head" is nautical slang for using the bathroom.

Thanks! The first interesting post in this thread since several pages!

I personally thought Julio meant hitting Elan on the head for his stupidity, and that the sentence was either a typo by the giant or some slang I didn't know. Now I know it means using the bathroom.Thanks!

[Flame of Anor]

A casual poster is unlikely to come to the thread and start counting votes in order to decide if he needs to vote, especially if at least 23 votes have been cast, probably over a span of at least two pages. Since people do and have changed their votes, counting is also effectively useless unless you can also keep 20 screen names in your head, and remember who voted what. So, in fact, in your scenario the sheer abundance of posts is far more likely to dissuade a casual poster, who can't even find the quote being voted upon, than any imaginary "oh, the result won't be affected by my vote anyway".

Grey Wolf

The votes are bolded, remember? It's pretty easy to skim through the page and see Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No and tell that the vote is pretty close.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The votes are bolded, remember? It's pretty easy to skim through the page and see Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No and tell that the vote is pretty close.

No, because those will not be on the same page, and even if they are you will have to scroll through several screens worth of posts, rather than have them be all lined up in an easily readable format and, as I mentioned as an actual event of past votes, you don't know if some of those votes are a reversal of a previous vote, which now you need to remove from the tally.

A casual reader won't bother to do all that. Far more likely, he will not go back a page to see what the vote is about, and simply leave.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

The votes are bolded, remember? It's pretty easy to skim through the page and see Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No and tell that the vote is pretty close.

Or conversely, skim through the page and see Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes to see that the vote's really weighted in one direction...although if the first five on the page are "yes" it's likely a casual reader will stop skimming by that point. Granted, if we're going to be doing consolidated voting (votes on multiple quotes per post), then "casual" skimming becomes much more difficult.

But at the same, it raises another problem: the discussion for a particular quote could be several pages back, and out of memory when the vote is called (assuming a voter even saw it in the first place). That's why I favor voting by post, so voting and statement of reasoning can happen at the same time, for those inclined to restate their position.

[Sir_Dr_D]

All of this voting, and talking about voting is getting annoying. People can post links to new comments y the Giant. But ThePhantasm is then the judge on whether it does actually meet the goals of the the thread or not.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

All of this voting, and talking about voting is getting annoying. People can post links to new comments y the Giant. But ThePhantasm is then the judge on whether it does actually meet the goals of the the thread or not.

He can't be the judge:

Certain project threads are curated by member volunteers who take responsibility for maintaining the consensus of conclusions from discussion, often because they have made the opening post in the thread and thus are the only non-moderators that can edit it. These curators bear no special title, and have no official authority; they are not moderators, and cannot ban discussion of issues they consider settled. Their sole responsibility is to maintain lists of information as represents the threads community's conclusions. Specifically, the curator cannot prevent certain topics from being discussed, prevent any given poster from participating, or make any sort of executive decision on what is or is not included in the opening post of a curated topic.

(emphasis mine).

Now, he can be an editor, who does a first pass. But if anyone disagrees, consensus must be reached. This is not a quirk of ThePhantasm, it's the rules for these kind of threads.

Grey Wolf

[DrBurr]

Whats with the assumption casuals are idiots?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to skim through and pick up bolded votes, is this completely accurate, no, but if you want a general feeling of the vote its sufficient. And even if it was difficult inevitably someone seems to go through and post an update on the poll every few pages.

The idea of a Secret ballot seems like a poor idea to me, I only vote on quotes I care about or if an issue is pretty divisive. If a secret ballot was initiated I'd have no clue what the current feelings would be.

I dislike the premature votes to but removing the votes from the thread is a bit overkill and actually makes it harder for people to follow a quote's process. I support this monthly voting blocks, seeing as Phantasm only updates the thread monthly anyways.


I find it a bit Ironic that this initiative to cut down on excessive posts in this thread has actually lengthened it by what seems to be 10 pages


As for the latest Bandanna quote, it really doesn't add anything, The Giant explains a phrase which Google could answer and he explains one of the most basic rules of visual media.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Whats with the assumption casuals are idiots?

"Uninterested in digging through three pages of voting" ≠ "idiots".

The idea of a Secret ballot seems like a poor idea to me, I only vote on quotes I care about or if an issue is pretty divisive. If a secret ballot was initiated I'd have no clue what the current feelings would be.

Which is why exactly no-one has proposed secret ballots.

Seriously, stop it with the straw man. Try to at least bother to read what "voting by PM" means (now explained 4 times by me) before attacking something it is not.

Grey Wolf