How do you feel about the current leaderboard? Would you like to see anything change? Whatâs the best argument for a radically different leaderboard (given the current list of candidates)?
I read this at first as about the programming of the leaderboard and thought of an answer, but (now with caffeine) think that isnât what you are asking! Anyway, the answer was to include both the current âin the moneyâ section and a âlast ones eliminated /â in the huntâ section of the 4th/â5th/âmaybe 6th place choices on the front page.
This would allow the reader to see at a glance what the most outcome-relevant pairwise comparisons are and how close they are. In turn, this would encourage them to vote if they had a clear opinion on those and focus their attention on the most impactful elements of their ranking. (They should still vote honestly for statistical purposes but may want to pay special attention to the pairwise comparisons that will determine money moved.)
Have you tried expanding the list to add candidates? We added that feature for this purpose, but it is interesting to know if it isnât fulfilling that.
I have been doing that, but from a UI/âUX 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/âUX early, but at this stage in the process the choice between those pairwise comparisons is pretty important.
Itâs 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.
How do you feel about the current leaderboard? Would you like to see anything change? Whatâs the best argument for a radically different leaderboard (given the current list of candidates)?
I read this at first as about the programming of the leaderboard and thought of an answer, but (now with caffeine) think that isnât what you are asking! Anyway, the answer was to include both the current âin the moneyâ section and a âlast ones eliminated /â in the huntâ section of the 4th/â5th/âmaybe 6th place choices on the front page.
This would allow the reader to see at a glance what the most outcome-relevant pairwise comparisons are and how close they are. In turn, this would encourage them to vote if they had a clear opinion on those and focus their attention on the most impactful elements of their ranking. (They should still vote honestly for statistical purposes but may want to pay special attention to the pairwise comparisons that will determine money moved.)
Have you tried expanding the list to add candidates? We added that feature for this purpose, but it is interesting to know if it isnât fulfilling that.
I have been doing that, but from a UI/âUX 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/âUX early, but at this stage in the process the choice between those pairwise comparisons is pretty important.
Itâs 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.