Have you tried expanding the list to add candidates? We added that feature for this purpose, but it is interesting to know if it isn’t fulfilling that.
I have been doing that, but from a UI/​UX perspective people need to first intuit that there is a race between the three listed and the ~2 next in line and then click 2-3 times in succession. I think top-three only was the correct default UI/​UX early, but at this stage in the process the choice between those pairwise comparisons is pretty important.
It’s hard for me to assess how successful the current mechanism is, but I noticed that ~20-25% of people with votes for orgs that made the top 8 do not have a vote listed when we get down to the top 3. There are various possible reasons for that, but it does raise the possibility that nudging people toward the outcome-determinative elements of the ranking process would be helpful in the final days.
Have you tried expanding the list to add candidates? We added that feature for this purpose, but it is interesting to know if it isn’t fulfilling that.
I have been doing that, but from a UI/​UX perspective people need to first intuit that there is a race between the three listed and the ~2 next in line and then click 2-3 times in succession. I think top-three only was the correct default UI/​UX early, but at this stage in the process the choice between those pairwise comparisons is pretty important.
It’s hard for me to assess how successful the current mechanism is, but I noticed that ~20-25% of people with votes for orgs that made the top 8 do not have a vote listed when we get down to the top 3. There are various possible reasons for that, but it does raise the possibility that nudging people toward the outcome-determinative elements of the ranking process would be helpful in the final days.