It would be nice if the reordering happened only on reload and not immediately. I sometimes ticked an “importance” box fully intent to also tick another one, but then the block jumped away, and I’d have to go looking for it again.
I second Saulius’s feedback: I also feel like it’d be easier for me to rate things on a three- or five-point scale or even with a slider. As it is, I’m tempted to tick almost all the boxes on all problems.
I really like your initial selection. I had a hard time voting on animal welfare because my assessments of farmed and wild animal welfare are so different. Then I noticed that you had anticipated my problem and added the subsections!
The term tractable seems more intuitive to me than solvable, since the second can be misunderstood as whether the problem can be fully solved as opposed to the definition that Saulius cites.
I’d like to make a distinction (and maybe a granular one) between whether I think a problem is not important/neglected/tractable or whether I have no opinion on it. E.g., I currently don’t know whether the Pain Gap is tractably addressable, but not ticking the box feels as if I were saying that it’s not tractable.
Not showing other people’s ratings could help avoid anchoring people.
1. I definitely agree—I tried fixing this but had some difficulty. It may be doable, I’ll have to try again haha. Good news though is that if there are more people using the platforms, there will likely be more of a delta in scoring between the different problem areas, therefore blocks will jump/reorder less often.
2. Similar to my reply to Saulius above on this, do you think a three or five point scale would be viewed as more effort / thinking required for some people? Maybe it’s actually a good thing if it requires more thinking, but just wanted to get your perspective on this
3. Thanks! The goal is to have sub-sections, sub-sub sections, etc. That’s what I find most excited about this concept—the ability to break down these problems further and further to identify where we should focus our efforts within each umbrella :)
4. Interesting, for me it was the opposite haha. Before learning about EA, I wasn’t really familiar with the term tractable. I’ll definitely change this if I get more feedback like yours.
5. I completely understand your perspective on this. I thought quite a bit about the construct for this, and wanted to keep it as simple as possible—which meant limited the number of options available to select. My thought was that if someone is on the fence about whether or not to select a box, and some of those people end up choosing not to select it, that’s probably an indication that it’s a less important issue than one that seems unequivocally large, neglected or solvable. Is that fair?
6. What if I only showed other people’s ratings after your voted yourself? Would that help?
Cool idea!
A few things I just noticed:
It would be nice if the reordering happened only on reload and not immediately. I sometimes ticked an “importance” box fully intent to also tick another one, but then the block jumped away, and I’d have to go looking for it again.
I second Saulius’s feedback: I also feel like it’d be easier for me to rate things on a three- or five-point scale or even with a slider. As it is, I’m tempted to tick almost all the boxes on all problems.
I really like your initial selection. I had a hard time voting on animal welfare because my assessments of farmed and wild animal welfare are so different. Then I noticed that you had anticipated my problem and added the subsections!
The term tractable seems more intuitive to me than solvable, since the second can be misunderstood as whether the problem can be fully solved as opposed to the definition that Saulius cites.
I’d like to make a distinction (and maybe a granular one) between whether I think a problem is not important/neglected/tractable or whether I have no opinion on it. E.g., I currently don’t know whether the Pain Gap is tractably addressable, but not ticking the box feels as if I were saying that it’s not tractable.
Not showing other people’s ratings could help avoid anchoring people.
Thanks so much for your feedback Denis!
Here are my responses:
1. I definitely agree—I tried fixing this but had some difficulty. It may be doable, I’ll have to try again haha. Good news though is that if there are more people using the platforms, there will likely be more of a delta in scoring between the different problem areas, therefore blocks will jump/reorder less often.
2. Similar to my reply to Saulius above on this, do you think a three or five point scale would be viewed as more effort / thinking required for some people? Maybe it’s actually a good thing if it requires more thinking, but just wanted to get your perspective on this
3. Thanks! The goal is to have sub-sections, sub-sub sections, etc. That’s what I find most excited about this concept—the ability to break down these problems further and further to identify where we should focus our efforts within each umbrella :)
4. Interesting, for me it was the opposite haha. Before learning about EA, I wasn’t really familiar with the term tractable. I’ll definitely change this if I get more feedback like yours.
5. I completely understand your perspective on this. I thought quite a bit about the construct for this, and wanted to keep it as simple as possible—which meant limited the number of options available to select. My thought was that if someone is on the fence about whether or not to select a box, and some of those people end up choosing not to select it, that’s probably an indication that it’s a less important issue than one that seems unequivocally large, neglected or solvable. Is that fair?
6. What if I only showed other people’s ratings after your voted yourself? Would that help?
Thanks again!