<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Hello, schrieb Michael Allan: <blockquote cite="mid:1334551065.C3E1eDab0.10062@out.zelea.com" type="cite">Yes, I finished remote wikis yesterday and will post about it today. <pre wrap="">Next is votespace and other count pages. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/Votespace?p=G!p!sandbox&u=Test-b-ZeleaCom">http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/Votespace?p=G!p!sandbox&u=Test-b-ZeleaCom</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/Rank?19&p=G!p!sandbox&u=Test-b-ZeleaCom">http://zelea.com:8080/v/w/Rank?19&p=G!p!sandbox&u=Test-b-ZeleaCom</a> </pre> </blockquote> Cool! Thats what I meant. <blockquote cite="mid:1334551065.C3E1eDab0.10062@out.zelea.com" type="cite">After I put the old votespace on stage, the next thing is to automate <pre wrap="">the creation of initial position drafts. Part of that, I figure, is to automatically cast an initial vote (with approval)</pre> </blockquote> Automatically create a position if someone votes ... yes! ... but at what point would the new user be asked to vote? If he just visits a draft? <blockquote cite="mid:1334551065.C3E1eDab0.10062@out.zelea.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Maybe mini votespace matters more than full votespace? Active users won't often be visiting a dedicated votespace view (why would they?) </pre> </blockquote> For myself it is clear, that I want to have an overview, where I can see where I am in the whole power-structure of the whole poll. Where my candidates candidate is etc. Ofc it would be perfect to have the whole votespace in a track or so on top of every other window. But thats not possible, I guess. So a Mini-votespace will have to do there. Especially when one casts or shifts his vote (which I expect to happen very often in the beginning of a poll) the big picture is useful. So to have the full votespace connected to the voting-facility (like it is now) is the best imo. <blockquote cite="mid:1334551065.C3E1eDab0.10062@out.zelea.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I don't understand what you mean by 20 voters "all with the same position". Even a single circle (candidate and voters) has positions that diverge somewhat. Any 20 positions that deserved center place in a larger poll would likely diverge even more. </pre> </blockquote> With vote-circle I meant: I vote for you, you vote for C, C votes for me. And in the old vote-space the way this circle shows up is quite irritating. The only thing I can think of, would be to show all three of us as end-candidates (with the same amount of votes ofc) but somehow graphically connected, so the circular vote becomes clear. ... Now, with a real poll in mind, this case (circular vote) becomes my favorite one. It bridges the two extremes: 1. every voter has his own position (Votorolas design) and 2. a position belongs to all its voters and can therefore never be changed again (most other designs out there). The second design is ofc unbearably limited, but its advantage is: the feeling is clearly, that one is voting for a position instead of voting for a person. Many people don't like voting for a person. I heard that quite often in conversations. Their pull to e-democracy comes from there: they look foreward to not need to vote for people anymore, but for people-less, pure, clean positions. And pyramide with one person at the top reminds them of dictators. Votorolas design allows for vote-circles, which allows you to vote for a group of people. Imo this is perfect! Thomas <pre wrap=""> </pre> </body> </html>