Vote on Future Extra History Topics!
Added 2016-04-23 17:04:03 +0000 UTCWhat topics would you like us to cover on Extra History? Let us know in this series vote - science and economy edition!
Link: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/p/w2uU7wRD?qid=821334
Deadline: April 26, at midnight PST
Schedule: Early Christian Schisms --> First Opium War --> The Gracchi Brothers --> Your Vote!
Results are decided by an Approval Voting system. You can select as many topics as you want, and whichever has the most consensus wins!
Comments
Thanks! And yes, unpopular history deserves to be told. :-) Heh. Love this series.
Dani McKenzie
2016-05-01 04:31:43 +0000 UTCI figured there would be more issues. I would like to see how it play out with a larger sample size with a mock test vote with the commnuity, but I don't want to push more burdens onto you. Well it was just a suggestion: I wouldn't change the voting system without asking the community if we want a new system first. I agree cardinal voting does obfuscate the effect of single person's vote, but I don't see how it's hard to understand. The Extra History community is fairly smart and rational. The instructions are simple rate any topic(s) you wish, highest average rating wins. For the results, the only portion that decides the topic is the weighted average which is represented with the star graphic on the bottom and the weighted average column. Unless you checked the "required question" box, voters don't have to rate every topic only the ones they wish to vote for or against. Also, more stars would be more preferable since that would give voter more options and reduce the likelihood of ties. While it may be more straightforward to say a topic won by 1 vote, winning by 0.1 stars is more democratic, since for our electorate, about 900 people, that requires 90 people to rate it 1 star higher than second place, or 30 people to rate 3 stars higher if using 4 stars. I'm sure there are more issues that would need to be worked out. I'm sorry if I come off as pushy or condescending, but I want to see a system that more representative of the communities preferences. Maybe I'm just venting my frustrations with the current US electoral system. The general election really is making think about what make a good electoral system. Even we don't adopt a better system, Approval voting is better than the previous plurality voting.
Marco Honrade
2016-04-29 21:43:21 +0000 UTCI wouldn't even ask anyone to increase their pledges or set it for a milestone. I would just do it. But I started a test poll using the star rating feature and in my opinion, this option falls down on the first condition, which is that it be understandable to patrons. Here's what the results page looked like: <a href="http://puu.sh/oAeIJ/3e3012d31f.png" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://puu.sh/oAeIJ/3e3012d31f.png</a> --------------- Basically, FOS turned each vote into an average rating from 1-4. In my opinion - which is open to disputation of course - that's not a satisfying vote method since it abstracts everyone's votes and makes the vote count less obvious. I also can't randomize the order, so this gives subconscious preference to whatever topic I put first. It also forces you to give a rating to every topic, which isn't an insurmountable problem (1 star could become the equivalent of "No Interest / No Vote") but it's definitely not ideal. Basically, there are ways you could wrangle this system to MAKE it work, but it doesn't do it well enough to meet the standards I've laid out.
Extra History
2016-04-29 17:52:21 +0000 UTCFair enough, I too can't find a free online voting service with ranked voting that's user friendly, but I thought of a cheaper alternative based on your response to another patreon. On freeonlinesurvey.com, we could run the vote as a survey with 'star rating' question instead of a straight poll. We would rate each topic 1-10. This is known as Cardinal Voting. Approval voting is the simplest form of cardinal voting with approve being 1 and disapprove being 0; however using this would allow more tailored responses. For example i would've vote 10 points for Descartes, 9 points for Paper Money, 6 points for Curie, and 2 points for Oil rather than 1 vote for Descartes, Paper Money, and Curie and 0 vote for Oil. The winner would be the topic with the highest average. Since the EC community is greater than 1000 people, we would need to pay the 180 dollars annual subscription. However that is only 15 dollars a month and I am sure many of us would gladly increase our pledges for a more fair system for choosing topics.
Marco Honrade
2016-04-28 09:00:22 +0000 UTCIt has not, although we do have the Gracchi Brothers coming up, so there are going to be some voting shenanigans on the show right around September.
Extra History
2016-04-27 07:23:45 +0000 UTCIt's not that I don't understand preferential voting systems, but that I know of no free online tools that run them well. If you do know of one, I'm all ears! Also, based on my understanding of these systems, I'd lean towards a weighted ranking vote where your #1 vote got let's say 3 points, your #2 vote got 2 points, #3 got 1 point, and #4 got 0 points. I have concerns that this would make things too complicated but I am amenable to trying it if I can find the right tool.
Extra History
2016-04-27 07:22:34 +0000 UTCA preferencial system would be like, you rank the votes and so if my number 1 vote was the looser, my second would be counted. Like Marco said, it would be much more fair for fans. Especially when the votes end so closely sometimes.
Joshua Kristoff
2016-04-26 16:23:42 +0000 UTCI've missed a number of these votes so I don't know, but has the 1880 US Pres election been suggested for a topic? I feel that one could be timely.
Jessica Cheeri
2016-04-26 13:44:12 +0000 UTCDescartes is such a prime example of why (after the first few votes) I asked James to start providing me with subtitles. I had no idea he was ever a mercenary, but that little detail just makes the story so much more enticing!
Extra History
2016-04-25 03:04:23 +0000 UTCBasically, I'm willing to transfer to any voting system that works well for our purposes. "Our purposes" essentially requires two conditions be met: 1) Easy for patrons to understand and 2) easy for me to run on the backend. Thus far, I haven't heard of a (free) online polling tool that handles ranked voting gracefully, so it's mostly the second condition we keep falling flat on. I remain totally open to being convinced, though, as approval voting is a system that another Patron convinced me to adopt long ago! And for your final question, we are going to do some timeline hopping with that series, but James does currently plan to cover China in the series. My impression - which may not be correct, as I only spoke about it with James briefly - is that it would follow much of the same pattern that you'll soon see in Early Christian Schisms, where we also do a lot of forward hopping through time to get to and from the moments we want to discuss.
Extra History
2016-04-25 03:03:34 +0000 UTCAll 4 great topics, So hard to decide. I know this has been suggested ad nauseam but it would be nice if we had a ranking or preferential voting system. The problem with approval voting is that it assumes I equally want each topic I voted for, so I generally ended up bullet voting for the one want the most even if I do like all of them, which to me defeats the purpose of having approval voting. Aside from that do you guys have any idea how the "History of Paper Money" would be covered? It would seem disorganized to cover from Song Dynasty China to President Nixon.
Marco Honrade
2016-04-23 23:30:32 +0000 UTCYay, first time I can vote! I went for Descartes... but Marie Curie is a good second choice for me.
Antti Björklund
2016-04-23 19:11:39 +0000 UTCEep! I double-checked the settings and the poll says that multiple-option voting should be turned on. But if anyone else has this problem, please let me know and I shall troubleshoot it!
Extra History
2016-04-23 18:37:33 +0000 UTCNeither could the oil barons.
Extra History
2016-04-23 18:32:56 +0000 UTCTopics from previous votes do come back! For example, every fifth voting session is a special session where only the topics that have come in last place are on the ballot. (Sometimes, you have to make sure that the unpopular history gets made, too!) There's also a vote where we revisit patron-suggested topics that didn't win. As for the rest, which don't fall into either of those categories, we just bring them back whenever they're a good fit for the ballot! You'll see them again.
Extra History
2016-04-23 18:31:20 +0000 UTCMwahaha
Extra History
2016-04-23 18:29:31 +0000 UTCYou can tell when an idea has been rattling around in his head for a while!
Extra History
2016-04-23 18:29:22 +0000 UTCMe reading your post: ............. D: Why? ............. >:) YES -- As for your question, I don't know yet! James hasn't officially started researching these yet since they're just in the hypothetical stage, but he may have a book or two in mind.
Extra History
2016-04-23 18:28:54 +0000 UTCAll 4 were awesome choices
Dani McKenzie
2016-04-23 17:46:17 +0000 UTCCould we have topics from the previous votes be included. I would love the opportunity to revisit voting on topics.
Dani McKenzie
2016-04-23 17:45:55 +0000 UTCCouldn't decide between Oil and Paper Money
Trevor Sullivan
2016-04-23 17:30:22 +0000 UTCSo hard to decide. I would like to see both Lady of the Atom and Paper Money. Tried voting for both, but I guess my mouse glitched, because when I hit the second box nothing happened and I assumed I could only vote for one. Oh well. Looking forward to this either way.
Øyvind Wallentinsen
2016-04-23 17:13:19 +0000 UTCGood lord. You are awful people. Making my vote worthless by proposing 4 awesome topics. Out of curiosity, will the paper money series be heavily based on content from "Debt: the first 5000 years"?
rohit Ramesh
2016-04-23 17:11:05 +0000 UTCMan that's a hard choice!
Robbie the Gnome
2016-04-23 17:08:12 +0000 UTCJames talked about the unlikeliness of paper money a while ago on a Lies episode. Should be fun, I hope we see that one soon :3
Tiberia Prima
2016-04-23 17:07:33 +0000 UTC
