Question : would bringing back Profile voting encourage more to vote?

  • Idea
  • Updated 5 years ago
Dear Artwiculate

It was good of you to implement the voting suggestions we asked for a couple of months ago - to remove the names from the "3 hours to go" announcement, and removing voting from player profiles. Since this was done, we've monitored how things have gone, and we've noticed a mix of good and not so good effects.

The good thing is that newer players have begun to feature more often, not simply the "familiar old names". This can only be a good thing.

The bad thing is that scores have gone right down : the number of points for a winning tweet, average scores, etc. It is clear from this that fewer people are voting (maybe more people than we thought voted from profiles?)

It is probably true to say that lower voting brings 'skewed results' to some extent. It means, for example, that the influence of 'friends and family' voting becomes exaggerated; if more people voted, it would even out such anomalies.

I don't know if you yourselves have been monitoring results, and whether you've noticed the same effect that we have? We were wondering how to encourage more people to vote. Do you think that reinstating profile voting might help, or not?

(I'm also working on another, more intricate way to encourage more voting, which has received early enthusiastic feedback, but I will wait before asking you about that).

I'd just like to sign off by saying how much we love the game, and that these 'tweaks' we ask for are only in the spirit of our enthusiasm!
Photo of TiddK

TiddK

  • 216 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
  • wondering.

Posted 5 years ago

  • 11
Photo of Michael W

Michael W

  • 48 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Thanks Tidd

Personally, I have never profile voted except to
  1. Vote for myself :)
  2. Vote for a tweet I saw on my stream and I already knew the author


So, I'd like it back but I think your "other idea" is better.
Photo of Silia J. Hatzi

Silia J. Hatzi

  • 46 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
I do not see Tidd's suggestion as an either/or proposition, Michael.

I think this one, if deemed agreeable may be effectuated easier/faster than a new configuration.

Also, I think this suggestion & Tidd's other idea are meant to accomplish positive but different objectives :-)
Photo of Michael W

Michael W

  • 48 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Yes, fair enough. You'd be right about how easy this would be to reinstate.

Your reasons below about profile voting are well in alignment with mine. As my arm gets better I am in the "Real" world more often and voting on the entire suite of entries is often arduous.

I too have tweeters I admire and they produce entries that I have a far better than average chance of liking; no unfairness involved at all.

Not being a poetry / haiku fan, that wipes out 90% of players ;-)

I also think multi self voters are not put off by the lack of a profile vote as much as genuine players are put off by the amount of work complete voting entails.
Photo of Nimue

Nimue

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
i do the same when it comes to voting .. just that i don't get enough time now days to read and vote as much as i want !
Photo of Silia J. Hatzi

Silia J. Hatzi

  • 46 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
Really good points, Tidd, all of them.

I've noticed the same points you covered and I had the same thoughts/questions you articulated above plus a couple of additional observations.

When I did not have time to vote on every page I used the profile search field to locate the profiles of the players I'd RT'd to vote for their tweets.

So now, if I don't have time to vote on every page I can no longer vote for all the tweets I RT, so I vote on pages here & there as I can.

Also, I deliberately avoided blind voting and used the profile search field on days that players used WOTD to spew vitriol regarding the game because I did not want to be exposed to such. (Unlike Twitter, I cannot "unfollow" players from the Artwiculate voting pages). Now, on days I see such on Twitter I avoid voting altogether (unless I can vote for a tweet as soon as it's tweeted and indexes on site) because I do not permit negativity in my world and without profile voting I cannot be selective about excluding seeing those tweets.

What I knew I was going to miss about having the profiles but supported removing them anyway, was the special fun it was for me to go a player's profile to see what they'd done that day with the WOTD and be able to vote for them. Not having the profiles may be more fair but it is -as I expected- less fun for me.

The timing of removing the profile pages & the ongoing uninspiring commentaries of Artwiculate & players on GS & the tweet stream coincided (?) with the departure of players who tweeted several entries daily in a variety of genres, such as limericks, "riddle" tweets, off-beat humor, wholesome warmhearted tweets, classically rhyming poetry, puns, smart-Aleck quips, quirkie tweets, etc. I'm referring to the stylistic diversity contributed by players such as DaveCurry, CatMar604, baccatum, LithiumZombie, CaliforniaKara, JonPowles, MaryJenkins, dmriver, Kado56, JoeKnaack, PeggyKaack, et alia. Several other daily players now play only occasionally: TwordBird, TheSupercargo, bwlightning, AaronLivingston, EmmaExpress, UltraCuteBot, coinopratchris, StarOfSavannah, Squawkingalah, agezoko et al.

Such departures may not have been replaced by new players: we seem to have less tweets (15-20 pages of tweets total is more typical now whereas 25-35 was the norm). In my subjective opinion we also have less stylistic diversity.

So for me, voting is not as much fun for anymore because the experience is not as rewarding and on days when my time is limited I am not as motivated to squeeze voting in as I was.

However unfair profile voting may be or not, it offers the ability to enjoy voting on days when one's time is limited by visiting profiles who consistently tweet stuff one likes.

Obviously, profile voting helps on spam days but those are a fluke and not -in my opinion- a reason to reinstate them.

I hope my the aforementioned helps Artwiculate in their pondering of your questions,Tidd.

I want to commend you, Tidd, on two points: Firstly, since it was you who spearheaded the effort to remove the profile voting, I am impressed with your open-mindedness in honestly assessing its effectiveness. So many of us seem to be more vested in our ideas having been right instead of effective and are too insecure to explore the "oops... did it *work*?" :-)

Secondly, thank you for your gracious tone in crafting this post: it is clear that you are interested in raising points for Artwiculate to ponder and not championing a personal agenda regardless of how such is received by others.
Photo of ultracutebot

ultracutebot

  • 44 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
i still play, but yes, i have to say the elimination of profile voting made it a little less fun for me, and also made it such a pain the a** to vote if you're pressed for time. besides, if people want to vote for their friends, they still can, it's just more difficult (i.e. looking at your favorite players' profiles, finding tweets they've done on twitter & RTing, then selectively voting for them assuming you have the time to sift thru the pages and pages of WOTD entries). i'm all for fairness and ideal situations, but i think profile voting is honestly more realistic in the world we live in. anyway, that's just me.
-QT
Photo of TiddK

TiddK

  • 216 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
QT - you're by no means the only Artwiculata/o to find pressure of time makes voting very difficult. You'll be interested in my upcoming proposal (listing the leading 100 tweets each day, for voting), and I really hope you feel able to support it. Watch this space! (Or rather, it will be a new topic :-)
Photo of Jonathan Powles

Jonathan Powles

  • 69 Posts
  • 80 Reply Likes
We are having an election in Australia right now. It would seem odd if we had to vote "blind", wouldn't it? Vote for policies without knowing the identity or party that put them forward?

Yet that's what the elimination of the profiles has done in Artwiculate. Bizarre, if you think about it.

There is, I think, a causal link between the elimination of profile voting and the departure of so many players, myself included. But it's indirect. Why were the profile-page votes eliminated? At root, it was because there was a sense about that something "unfair" was going on. We wanted more impartiality, to focus more on the game and less on the interpersonal: some felt upset about supposed "cliques", and their bleating complaints made it seemingly preferable to eliminate profile voting, hoping thereby to silence the acrimonious twerps.

Has it succeeded? Clearly not. Akh continues his mindless invective even worse than before. He would have been banned from any moderated online community months ago. Others continue their disgruntled sniping about "cliques" and "power players", clearly labouring under the misapprehension that they are poetic geniuses, and if only we got the voting system right, they would get their just desserts. Sorry, guys: most of your tweets are unimaginative malarkey, and that's why they don't win. "4 u 2 B the winner, u need 2 say somthng clever in d English language. #haiku"

Sadly, Artwiculate has created a problem through being so responsive. If they'd just set up the game as it was in December last year, and said "here's your game: play it if you like it, or don't if you don't", then we wouldn't have these problems. If I'm playing chess, I don't petition the tournament director mid-game to ask for the rules to be changed so that bishops can move sideways.

Artwiculate is a voting game. So, YES, in some sense, it's a popularity contest. Now, it's a popularity contest that's hard to use. When I used to vote, I used to vote for the tweets and tweeters I liked. There's no harm there! That's the nature of the game. All the "new players" malarkey is just bullshit, quite frankly. I was a new player once. So was Tidd. I had NO trouble identifying new players and voting for them if they were any good.

A couple of examples: I used to go straight to @kado56's profile and vote for her "Harbinger" tweets whenever I got the chance. Clique? If you want to call it that: actually, I really liked her "Harbinger" tweets and so I voted for them. I would go to @squawkingalah's page, once she started, and regularly vote for her witty tweets as I felt he wasn't getting the points she deserved. Unfair? Matter of opinion. But the point is, whether you like it or not, "like it or not" is the essence of the game - voting for the tweets you LIKE.

Or not.

Bring back the profiles, and get a bit more mature about human nature. This is a social-media based game. We vote for the tweets and tweeps we like. If you are friendly, likable, and have a bit of verbal talent, you could probably win with a haiku about Puff the Magic Dragon. If you're a talentless, whingeing, paranoid bean-counter, no-one will vote for you and you should probably f*** off and play sudoku.
Photo of Jonathan Powles

Jonathan Powles

  • 69 Posts
  • 80 Reply Likes
Of, Akh, your post was pure "genious". Akh, you're the man my man could spell like.
Photo of TiddK

TiddK

  • 216 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
I just want to sign off this post. It seems that there are mixed feelings about profile voting. We all agree that without it, voting is less 'cliquey' and theoretically fairer. Yet in many ways, we seem to miss going directly to a favourite tweet or tweeter, and voting.

I wonder if the discussion has, in any case, moved on. The proposal to encourage more voting and to eliminate spam, may make this topic redundant. So I've said all I wanted to and needed to here. I would rather concentrate on the other matter.
Photo of Jonathan Powles

Jonathan Powles

  • 69 Posts
  • 80 Reply Likes
I don't agree:

"We all agree that without it, voting is less 'cliquey' and theoretically fairer."

Not me. I don't think this can be demonstrated by recent results. I STILL don't know a) what people mean by cliquey, and b) why it would be considered unfair.
Photo of Marianne Powles

Marianne Powles

  • 15 Posts
  • 25 Reply Likes
Some quick points that might not be quite relevant: I have begun to enjoy this game much more as I have (genuinely) started to worry less about the results. The impact on the my enjoyment of the game of losing really witty, thoughtful, erudite and unusual thinkers is FAR greater than any changes in voting 'fairness'.

I don't have a moral objection to profile voting. I can pick 80% of tweeters when I blind vote anyway! It's less about 'popularity' than enjoying someone's style. I unashamedly prefer Jane Austen to Desmond Bagley. I'm scared about more changes, because it seems that as each change 'fixes' something it creates new, unforseen problems. I don't want to lose anyone else!
Photo of Jonathan Powles

Jonathan Powles

  • 69 Posts
  • 80 Reply Likes
I agree with you. Must be a first time for something ;-) Does that make us a 'clique'? :-)
Photo of Jonathan Powles

Jonathan Powles

  • 69 Posts
  • 80 Reply Likes
Oh dear, I should have read more closely. I agree with you about the profile issue. However, that Austen woman is insufferable. Give me one of Bagley's subtle masterpieces, like "Juggernaut", any day.
Photo of Jane Roffe

Jane Roffe

  • 8 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
Marianne is spot on. By far the worst effect of all this nit-picking is the departure of some of our most entertaining and sharpest players. It is irritating of course when winning tweets are unworthy. But it is no more than that. The loss of players whose tweets are sheer genius is much much worse. I'd like the game to go back to being a safe place to have fun with words - untainted by fear of attacks.
Photo of Silia J. Hatzi

Silia J. Hatzi

  • 41 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
When I grow up I want to communicate as clearly and succinctly as Jane does :-)
Photo of Ram

Ram

  • 19 Posts
  • 30 Reply Likes
i just want to point out that maybe someone at artwiculate has wonderful sense of humour. its very possible that they knew exactly what would happen with a word like "kindle" and were just playing with us, the "serious" players! and to top it all off, the winning entry was "spam". I was lmao at the winning entry...
Photo of TiddK

TiddK

  • 216 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
You could well be right Ram. Looking at the bile expended yesterday (see above, if you dare), and then today's word is "atrabilious". Coincidence? I wonder...
Photo of Jonathan Powles

Jonathan Powles

  • 69 Posts
  • 80 Reply Likes
I often wonder whether the motivation of setting up an unmoderated competitive game with an unmoderated discussion forum was the work of a bunch of psychologists with a sense of humor and a healthy disregard for Ethics Committee approval.
Photo of Miranda Joubioux

Miranda Joubioux

  • 40 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Funny you should say that Jon, but I've often wondered that too. They've certainly had a field day with us, if that is true, but I don't believe it is.
Photo of Silia J. Hatzi

Silia J. Hatzi

  • 41 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
So I wasn't the only one laughing! I had the exact same thought, Ram, not only for kindle, but for asinine & debacle too. I often think the Artwiculate folks are making one-word commentaries on our soap opera going ons :-) Either that or it's synchronicity. Either way, its amusing :-)

The kindle day ended up being one of my favourite days of playing ever because @MazPowles came up with the ingenious idea for a bunch of us to tweet entries as fast as we could to try to beat SPAM in dominating a page on the site with legitimate entries - it was a blast!

(Airy-fairy proclamation coming up - please skip reading it if allergic to non-reasonable positivity.)

And, what a great example of the fun we can have when we embrace the what is - yes, even SPAM :-)

I'm now working on being like water with trolling :-)
Photo of TiddK

TiddK

  • 216 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
I think 'sanctimonious' PROVES it was not mere synchronicity :-)
Photo of Silia J. Hatzi

Silia J. Hatzi

  • 41 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I'm with Tidd on this one. I won't be surprised if we get "Narcissus" one of these days :-) #Artwiculottery
Photo of Miranda Joubioux

Miranda Joubioux

  • 40 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Many people above have expressed their views on a return to profile voting and would appear to be interested in this and certainly not against it.
I started a topic http://getsatisfaction.com/artwiculat...
which I felt could be a solution to spam. I shelved it because I felt that there were quite a lot of negative views on this. However, I may have been wrong to do so.
My only intention at the time was to deal with the spam issue.
I would like people to express their opinions on my thread.
I will drop this if I feel there is no point, but I'm no longer sure.