Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

After much thought, I have proposed to the moderators, and gained approval for, trying an experiment here.

Let me be clear up front that I appreciate every member of this group who spends any of their valuable time with us. There are a great many Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ groups, not to mention many other places both on the Internet and in "real" life, where one can spend one's time and energy, so any time and energy spent here is a gift to be cherished.

That said, it is also clear that there are certain members who are less active and others who are more active here, and it is the more active ones who are central in keeping the discussions so valuable, powerful, and interesting. They both deserve and have the respect and appreciation of the moderators.

When it comes to choosing which books to read here, under the normal Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ voting process the votes of these most active members have the same influence on the ultimate selection as those of members who may visit only occasionally and whose participation is mostly passive rather than active. For some time that has bothered me, since books may be chosen which, while they receive more votes, are of less interest to the central core of participants.

So the experiment we are proposing is that in voting for books, those who have proven their commitment to the group and to keeping the discussion active and interesting should have greater influence on the choice of which books we read. There are many ways to accomplish this, but the one I have suggested for initial trial is this: we will continue with encouaging all group members to vote in the polls, but the votes will be weighted. The initial weighting, and understand that this is a trial which may require tweaking (or even abandoment) as things develop, is that the votes of members who have made fewer than 100 posts (lifetime) in the group will count for one point, the votes of members who have made 100 to 300 posts in the group will count two points, and the votes of those who have made more than 300 posts in the group will count for three points. Those points will be added together to reach a vote score for each book.

What this means is that the book with the highest number of votes shown by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ in the poll will NOT necessarily be the highest scoring book. Rather, the highest scoring book will be that which, we hope, will be likely to elicit the greatest discussion and posting interest.

I recognize up front that there are several aspects to this. First, it considers only the number of posts a person has made, not the nature of the posts, but that's fine with me. I don't even want to think about trying to judge somehow the quality or value of posts. Even quite simple and basic posts can lead to very insightful discussions, and new posters have to get their feet wet and work their way into the sense of the group. Second, it's possible that one or two people may try gaming the system by making a large number of essentially contentless posts to get to a higher post count, but if that does happen it will be obvious and we'll deal with it on a case by case basis. Third, it does make more work for the moderators to check each person's posting record and calculate a score, but I'm willing to take that on at least during an experimental period.

I don't pretend that this is a perfect solution to the perceived problem, but I think the situation does warrant some attention, so I think we'll give this a try and see how it works out. It may well be that the poll outcome and the book scores turn out to be identical. If so, the "solution" obviously isn't needed. But let's try it and see.

Meanwhile, the moderators are certainly open to comments on this proposal. Naturally, those who comment on it will keep in mind the core value of this group, that it is fine to disagree, but not to be disagreeable.

As an occasional posting member (though longtime lurker), I don't have any problems with this. I think it's only right that my vote should count less. Having said that, I didn't even vote in the last poll.

If my calculations are correct, and this proposal is adopted, I think that means we will be reading Apuleius for our next discussion. If so, that may cause me to contribute a bit more, as I have studied Apuleius in Latin in the past, though my Latin certainly isn't up to it these days.

Adjusted vote counts by my calculation are:

Apuleius 10
Dickens 8
Cervantes 7
Bunyan 4
Wordsworth 3
de Tocqueville 3
Austen 3
Tacitus 1

As someone who has joined the group and hasn't really found the time to get involved, I think that sounds like an excellent idea. I am, personally, not someone who votes on book picks regardless - if I see a poll and know I have only a small chance of being involved or genuinely have no opinion, I'll abstain, although I know some people will cast a lot regardless, and this should help this be a fairer process.

I, too, think this is a good idea. As a member who left and then came back I don't think I should have as much influence on the book choices, at least at first until I begin to participate more frequently. And, like some of the others here I actually don't vote unless I'm really sure I'll be participating. Voting for voting's sake doesn't appeal to me. And why vote if the selections aren't ones I want to read. I think this is fair and thoughtful.

I think that is an excellent suggestion, Everyman. I have only participated in one group read with this particular group, but I have certainly been frustrated by the lack of discussions in other groups, and usually I end up reading books I did not even vote for that end up having minimal participation from the members who actually voted for the book.

I also did not vote in this particular poll since I knew I would probably not have time to participate. I know the polling process and voting can be exciting and fun, but it would be nice if people who actually voted were serious about participating if their particular book gets chosen.

As one who tends to come and go from discussions depending on what is going on in my life, I think this is a good idea. Especially since some polls do not have a high number of total voters, this should help insure that the interests of the (wonderful) core of this group will not get lost by "accident."

Everyman wrote: "After much thought, I have proposed to the moderators, and gained approval for, trying an experiment here..."

Just out of curiosity, why the cutoff at 300 posts, as opposed to, say, 1000, 500 or 200?

Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "After much thought, I have proposed to the moderators, and gained approval for, trying an experiment here..."

Just out of curiosity, why the cutoff at 300 posts, as opposed to, sa..."

No logical reason. I had to pick something, and that seemed a reasonable number to try. It can easily be adjusted if it's too high or too low.

David wrote: "If my calculations are correct, and this proposal is adopted, I think that means we will be reading Apuleius for our next discussion. "

I don't really like ex post facto rules, so I'm not going to apply the rule retroactively, but will follow our usual practice of holding a run-off poll. But the new policy will apply to the run-off, and yes, I will include Apuleius as one of the options since, as you noted, it would have prevailed if I had applied the new approach retroactively.

I'll get the run-off poll up shortly, but wanted to make this approach public before I posted it.

This sounds reasonable to me. I am happy to read any works of the Western Canon with this group. I browsed many before joining and did not find another with the depth of discussion this group has. I am just glad to be a part.

The proposal sounds reasonable to me, too. When I first found Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ I was thrilled and joined two groups - both of which I dropped when I found this group. That real, intelligent conversations take place here and is a learning environment, for me, is a gift. Further, since the goal is to read books from the Western Canon there can't be a disappointing choice for me.

Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "After much thought, I have proposed to the moderators, and gained approval for, trying an experiment here..."

Just out of curiosity, why the cutoff at 300 posts,..."

With this voting system, exactly 13 people would be in the upper echelon of the voting order (> 300 posts); 22 in the middle; 98% of the group members would be in the bottom (< 100 posts).

I'm curious how the experiment would turn out, whether it would lead to more active participation or not.

Nemo wrote: "...With this voting system..."

How/where do you find those contributions numbers by members into a specific group? (I guess they must be the ones to the right of members' names on the member list?)

Yes, "Members" and sort by "num comments" (or click on this link)

Nemo wrote: "I'm curious how the experiment would turn out, whether it would lead to more active participation or not. "

I doubt it will lead to more participation by those who don't currently participate anyway. The vast majority of the group's members introduce themselves and then vanish into the ether. This proposal simply gives those who do participate a greater say in the selection.

I doubt it will lead to more participation by those who don't currently participate anyway. The vast majority of the group's members introduce themselves and then vanish into the ether. This proposal simply gives those who do participate a greater say in the selection.

I basically read the experiment as saying that the members who are doing the discussing will finally be able to decide what they want to discuss. As a long time lurker here (years) I heartily approve of the measure.

Did any books get chosen in the past that were not of interest to the core group? If so, how often did it happen? If not, what prompted the experiment?

Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ tells me that this is my 40th lifetime post, making me a solid one-pointer. Nevertheless, I respect and support the rationale for the moderators' experiment. Like other posters in this thread, I have peeked at some other book groups and have never seen another with such a consistently high level of discussion, or one that has been so clearly very well-run. I also think it is fair that those most responsible for sustaining that quality have their book selection choices weighed more heavily.

My 39th lifetime post was a recent gentle sales pitch for Bleak House as our next read. I was pleased to see it doing well in our poll, but I recognize that the weighting system may promote Apuleius in a run-off (I'm assuming David's calculations, in an earlier post here, are on the money). Mr. Dickens is tugging on me much harder that Mr. Apuleius. I do agree with Everyman's previously stated proposition that voting for a "next read" candidate should trigger some degree of moral/ethical obligation to participate. As Bleak House garnered other votes, I've been mentally strategizing how best to manufacture a few more hours during my sometimes overly busy weeks, so I could robustly participate in the discussion of a masterpiece that I've always wanted to read, and that I encouraged others to support. But I get it that my stated commitment to do that shouldn't deserve the same weight as the known track record of those who have proven their commitment to keeping this excellent discussion group alive.

The new approach makes sense to me. I'm in several GR groups and all are trying to figure out how to encourage discussion. I think it's fair to favor those who tend to join in more than those who vote but then don't participate.

I have a set list of books that I'm trying to read this year - Frankenstein was on the list so I joined it for that one. It was a great discussion and I hope this group's selections and my list cross paths again! I had a similar list last year and joined the group for War & Peace, though work interfered with my reading that one - it's on my list for this year too, so hopefully I can add to existing comments!

I enjoy reading the comments and am definitely flagging some of the group reads as my future reads. Good luck with this approach and I look forward to reading or participating in more discussions.

I think Mark makes an important point that I believe Everyman will agree with. Nothing in this experiment (in my opinion pending Everyman's endorsement)should deter anyone in the group from advocating for a potential choice. Some very interesting and informative conversation has come from these "campaigns."

If, within the confines of the weighted voting system, a book advocated by a "one point" voter wins so much the better. And, as before, before voting one should be prepared (as Mark is) to become a participant in the discussion; and, in so doing, advance towards the exalted status of a "two pointer" or a "three pointer." :)

Zeke wrote: "... to become a participant in the discussion; and, in so doing, advance towards the exalted status of a "two pointer" or a "three pointer." :)"

I just envisioned us all having antlers on our heads. :)

Linda wrote: "I just envisioned us all having antlers..."

LOL!



By Siegfried Matull in this blog:


Or,

By Steve Guymon, at Yellowstone

Wanted to find a good image of two young deer clashing heads, but only found a two-pointer attempting to romance a young doe. The symbolism didn't seem quite right. [g]

I want to see a "three pointer"!

Nemo wrote: "I want to see a "three pointer"!"

Okay, for some reason they seemed harder to find, or had already been taken by a hunter, which I didn't want. But this should do (photographer's choice):



There are a pair and other photos here, by Chris:



He points out there are regional differences in how points are counted. (Smile, how appropo.) Chris wrote:

"I got up to hazy skies this morning from the fires to the east of us. The lighting was soft and good so I decided to go look for two bucks that I spotted yesterday near my house. Blacktail Deer are territorial so if you find them in an area chances are that ... you can find them somewhere nearby the following day.This was indeed the case as I found them less than a hundred yards from where I spotted them yesterday.There were two three pointers. For eastern United States readers that would be a six point buck."

Lovely photos, Lily! I especially like the first one. The antlers look so fuzzy, it's interesting to find out from the first link you posted that the velvet is actually a membrane to nourish the new antlers. Very cool!!

Linda wrote: "Lovely photos, Lily! I especially like the first one....Very cool!!"

Thx, Linda! I know the antlers are a "male thing," but I thought that first face was so sweet.

The deer around me make flower gardens impossible, which is so disappointing, but I still marvel each time I see one, even when they are invading.

Lily wrote: "The deer around me make flower gardens impossible"

Yeah, my parents previously lived in an area where deer would regularly tour the neighborhood looking for snacks. My mom soon found out they loved her tulips and roses - the tulips would bloom one day and then the next day all the flowers were gone leaving proud green stems with nothing on the ends. ha ha.

Ah. The above weighted polling idea does make sense to me. When the polling results in a book of which I have an interest, I shall surely join in. Having said that, by no means do I wish to sway the results away from where the most avid and loyal discussers wish to focus! I am at #113 posts now in this group having joined in for three reads/books thus far starting with Magic Mountain. So glad to have learned and been a part of this group since then (albeit as a "fair weather" member)! Actually, I also took the "Kierkegaard" Coursera class online as a result of Eman's tip to this group! Thank you, Everyman, for suggesting that!

Susan from MD wrote: "The new approach makes sense to me. I'm in several GR groups and all are trying to figure out how to encourage discussion. I think it's fair to favor those who tend to join in more than those who vote but then don't participate."

The solution is clearly to participate in the discussions. Not only will you gain the enrichment that comes from the discussion itself, you will also get, in time, a slightly weighted vote for the next read.

Again, this is coming from a long time lurker that decided to start following along much more closely. That the onset of the experiment coincided with me deciding to become more involved is interesting. What's more interesting, to me, is why this was not instituted before this. I assume that it was the decision of the moderators to be fair to everyone, but remember that they are not taking anything away from anyone. We still get a vote. If we are, like me, just beginning to post it is only more of an incentive for me to participate, knowing that the more I post the more chance that I will have of helping decide future reads.

Another thing that I would like to point out is that we are confining our choices to those works that exist within the Western Canon. There isn't a single work, in my opinion, that would not enrich you from reading it and if you don't like it than by all means, explain why and in so doing you will be hearing from others that may agree or disagree with your point of view. In other words, regardless of what happens, there are never any losers in this crowd. We all benefit no matter what happens, and only more so when we participate in the discussion.

I am really looking forward to seeing the results of this experiment.

Linda wrote: "...My mom soon found out they loved her tulips and roses..."

Tulips are hopeless here. Deer will avoid daffodils, however.

Nemo wrote: "With this voting system, exactly 13 people would be in the upper echelon of the voting order (> 300 posts)"

I didn't do the calculations. 300 comments didn't seem that much to me for the history of the group, but I might decide to drop the top level down to 200. The main thing is to give the active posters more influence on choosing the selections.

Nemo wrote: "Did any books get chosen in the past that were not of interest to the core group? If so, how often did it happen? If not, what prompted the experiment?"

We are blessed to have a core of participants who generally engage actively in the discussion whatever work is chosen. But when I look at some of the past polls, I do see that sometimes the non-participants outvote the active participants. This became particularly noticeable in the most recent poll, which led me to try this experiment that I had been thinking about for some time.

I'm gratified by the support of those who for the most part would have less voting power but support the fairness of this approach. Of course, there may be those opposed who choose not to say so, but I'm very pleased to see that the support has been strong.

Zeke wrote: "I think Mark makes an important point that I believe Everyman will agree with. Nothing in this experiment (in my opinion pending Everyman's endorsement)should deter anyone in the group from advocat..."

I agree absolutely. That's why I always post the list of candidates in a discussion post first, so that people can advocate for their favorites. As David pointed out, the advocations (come on, spell check, that should be a word) can be fascinating, and I admit that they have on a few occasions swayed my vote.

Everyman wrote: "...the advocations (come on, spell check, that should be a word)..."

RFLOL! Hadn't really thought about having a conversation with one's Spell Check, but have sworn at that faithful servant a few times! Especially when my best guess has been too far astray.

Everyman wrote: " I do see that sometimes the non-participants outvote the active participants. This became particularly noticeable in the most recent poll, which led me to try this experiment"

I was browsing through past group read discussions, and found that there was a group read of Don Quixote back in 2009. How did it sneak into the most recent poll?

Nemo wrote: "I was browsing through past group read discussions, and found that there was a group read of Don Quixote back in 2009. How did it sneak into the most recent poll? "

We (the mods) decided that since classic books are almost by definition books that deserve, even require, re-reading, we would see whether the group was ready to re-read some of our earliest books.

We have a quite different group now than we had then, so there may be a combination of people who were here then and want to re-read it, and those who weren't here then and want to read it.

Or, there may not. The poll will tell.

The run-off poll has been posted.

If I had known that my vote would count as three, I would've voted for Bunyan, and perhaps given it a shot in the run-off poll. Opportunity lost...

Of the three books that made the run-off poll, I really don't have any preference, and so my three points are up for grabs! :)

Nemo wrote: "If I had known that my vote would count as three, I would've voted for Bunyan, and perhaps given it a shot in the run-off poll. Opportunity lost..."

You overthink this way too much.

I also have no problem with the weighting of the votes. I have been more of a passive participant, reading & absorbing from others comments. Plato has been difficult for me & have had to go back & re-read sections many times after seeing comments. Just felt out of my depth for the most part!

For my part, I just want to say that reading this thread has been a revelation. It is really wonderful to discover that there are so many people who, even though they choose not to speak much,find value in lurking and following the discussion.

I (mostly) lurk on an another list (not on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ) where a small number of self-proclaimed "experts" endlessly repeat their own prejudices (with little supporting explanation for them) and rail at others for being so ignorant. It does little to nourish my hunger to learn more about the subject matter. To see that so many members find the tone of discussion here enlightening, even if they choose not to speak, is really inspiring.

It's kind of like the flack about MOOCs. Lots of people are bemoaning the fact that fewer than 1% finish the courses. I feel differently. I am excited that great college courses are available to everyone. If someone follows only a few of the lectures, gets exposed to something new and important and grows from the experience, I think it is great.

I hope that Everyman and the others who do the "heavy lifting" around here feel validated by the thread.

Patrice wrote: "Yes, that is my reaction exactly. I wish everyone reading along would join in.

I'm thinking the "experiment" is a bit like a switch from a pure democracy to a republic. Does that make sense?"

Well, I kind of still see it as a democracy. In the US our votes count only so much as they influence the Electoral College. So the Electoral College, or here those members with say >100 or even >200 or more in-group posts actually have more of a say in the final decision. But like in a democracy we can all make our opinions known, and like the public, we can influence those votes that are weighted more. For instance, Everyman's (and I'm sure that he's not the only one) vote has been swayed several times in the past from comments:

Everyman wrote: That's why I always post the list of candidates in a discussion post first, so that people can advocate for their favorites. As David pointed out, the advocations (come on, spell check, that should be a word) can be fascinating, and I admit that they have on a few occasions swayed my vote.

I also agree with the new method. As a newer member who has posted a little bit within the group but not much (life got in the way of my reading of Frankenstein), I felt a bit guilty about voting in the latest poll (not the run-off) because I would definitely participate if certain books were selected but would not participate if others were selected. Because if the core group members didn't prefer something I voted for, I didn't want to be responsible for them reading something they weren't thrilled to read. This solves that issue nicely.

Tiffany wrote: "...I felt a bit guilty about voting in the latest poll (not the run-off) because I would definitely participate if certain books were selected but would not participate if others were selected. ..."

Tiffany -- although it can be wonderful when people in online groups read and participate on books for which they did not vote, most online groups and members I know consider it an obligation, if at all possible, to participate only if for what that member has voted is selected. Do let go of the guilt -- I've been taught it is the useless emotion -- but do be responsible!? And we all know life occasionally gets in the way of a particular read. It is when 28 vote for a book and only 3-5 show up for its discussion that it really feels frustrating -- which I have seen happen, but luckily, less so on this board than on some others.

Tiffany, that is how I felt too when there was that recent poll in which the sequence of 3 Platonic dialogues was voted upon. I knew that was something I would not participate in but I could see the enthusiasm for it by others so I stepped back and did not vote. The last thing I wanted to was divert this enthusiasm by my vote! On the other hand, I was introduced to Plato by taking the Coursera "Kierkegaard" class online due to EMan's suggestion and am grateful that I did as it did introduce me to philosophy/Plato, etc. of which I had not had prior real exposure thereto! It is good to stretch one's mind into new areas (I quite enjoyed the online course). I do value the insight of this Classic and Western Canon group and love when I do participate as this is a stellar group with whom to discuss literature.

Disclaimer: I haven't voted in a while and have actually never participated in a book discussion (mostly because I'm currently placing a priority on books I haven't read, most of the books that have been picked since I joined have been ones I have read, and unfortunately the few others have been chosen at inopportune times).

I'd like to point out a potential issue with this experiment, something Everyman might want to watch for. The group of 3 pointers, by picking the books they are most interested in, may end up discouraging the participation of new people and current 1 pointers because their favoured books end up never being selected. Not sure if I'm explaining my point very well, but this may be setting up (or exacerbating?) a system in which a certain group of members are the deciders because they're the participants and the participants because they're the deciders.

Ibis3 wrote: "The group of 3 pointers, by picking the books they are most interested in, may end up discouraging the participation of new people and current 1 pointers because their favoured books end up never being selected."

Your point is well taken. This is certainly the down side of the experiment.

On the other hand, regular participants are sometimes discouraged when new members vote for a selection and then either don't participate in the discussion at all, or only for the first week or so. This leaves some of the regulars to carry on a discussion of a book that may not have been their first choice.

The way I see it, this experiment gives those who participate more voice and it encourages their continuing participation. It may not be entirely fair to new members, but new members who actively participate will be given more voting power in relatively short order.

Ibis3 wrote: "Not sure if I'm explaining my point very well, but this may be setting up (or exacerbating?) a system in which a certain group of members are the deciders because they're the participants and the participants because they're the deciders."

I can certainly see the possibility that you are pointing out here. However, as a 1-pointer myself, I would like to say that I am the type of reader who is open to reading many books that I normally would not have thought to read and so not voted for, yet am willing to read a book if it wins the poll. In another group I belong to, I have read 3 books this year that I did not vote for, and was happy to have read them and participated in the discussions - two were books which won the polls in which I voted for other choices, and one was a book in a poll where I didn't even vote but saw such excitement for the book that won that I decided to join in.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it is my guess (or hope) there are probably other people out there who would like to read the books that have active participation in them, and hopefully this might encourage more people to participate in the discussions. I know from experience that when a book has minimal to no participation, yet I am keeping with the reading and post my thoughts in the discussion, it becomes discouraging to keep doing so when there are no other posts.

Even though I see with several groups the disclaimer that says if you vote in the poll, should your choice win then you are obligated to participate in the discussion, this seems to rarely hold people accountable. I think the point system is a more active way to ensure that the choice that wins has active participants, at least that is my view of how the experiment will work. And personally I have no problem with the more active participants having more weight in the polls. They are the people who have kept the group alive and active.

Also, I have found myself now observing which group members (in other groups, that is) have voted for the winning book and say that they intend to read the book. I am beginning to find myself deciding on whether I'm going to read the book or not depending on who says they are going to participate, and keeping in mind their track record for participation in previous reads. Again, I would rather read a book that I did not vote for but which I know will have an active discussion.

Anyway, those are my additional two-cents. Sorry for the long post.

Linda wrote: "...Again, I would rather read a book that I did not vote for but which I know will have an active discussion...."

Couldn't agree more, Linda. Thx for all the perspectives not stated so far that you brought forward with your post -- they are worthy considerations, even if this is the one about which I most adamantly agree. I also do check on who is expressing interest and, if applicable, do consider their track record.

I dunno. This group produces a high proportion of books I read ages ago and have forgotten, authors I have read but not that book, books I'm ignorant of but would like not to be. Perfect for lurking. Likely to say something stupid as an intrepid commentator. It seems to me this experiment would make it more likely that the group would read more of the same, thus encouraging me to continue lurking.