-14

This question already has an answer here:

Moderator elections are here. I voted.

However, I find the voting page very biased. It's based on a feed, so if there's 30 people, I won't time nor the memory to read everyone's full description of why I should vote for them.

I doubt most users take the time to read each and every single candidates message.

A small synopsis/message that is written by the user and a different design would DEFINITELY make a huge difference in the way these elections took place and how effective they ultimately are.

Suggestion:

  1. Required Meta Description of why we should vote for a moderator. 140 characters.

  2. Different Design Tile view design where the candidates go across the screen (10 at a time for example) completely randomly (based on the refresh) and NOT based on the time they applied for the election.

  3. Expand Details: "Click to Read More" sign or 3 sentences of the candidates "message" to their potential constituency/voters.

  4. Hide the # of votes until the user voted. This is so biased. Heard Mentalty: feeling more secure voting for someone who has 50+ votes than with someone who has 30 even if they are much stronger than the other candidate. Pure herd mentality.

This would keep the election less biased and surely more effective giving us better moderators on stack exchange!

marked as duplicate by random feature-request Nov 16 '15 at 20:27

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    100 people? Only 30 people can advance to the primary phase... – animuson Nov 16 '15 at 20:23
  • Not sure what you mean. The order is random. Every time you reload, the order will be different. – ShaWiz Nov 16 '15 at 20:23
  • Changed that. The feed is massive. I lost count from being overwhelme (another reason why the design should be changed). – Lukesivi Nov 16 '15 at 20:24
  • @ShadowWizard it is random, but the way it's displayed is biased. It still leaves some candidates potentially and randomly in an unfair position if they're at the bottom of an enormous feed. – Lukesivi Nov 16 '15 at 20:25
7

Required Meta Description of why we should vote for a moderator. 140 characters.

The nomination phase, lasting for a week, has already formed the decision of those who vote now.

Different Design Tile view design where the candidates go across the screen (10 at a time for example) completely randomly (based on the refresh) and NOT based on the time they applied for the election.

There's no particular order. Also, I fail to see how would limiting the number of candidates help to vote - it was random so it remains, but makes it more difficult to vote, if you already know who you'd like to see as a mod.

Expand Details: "Click to Read More" sign or 3 sentences of the candidates "message" to their potential constituency/voters.

This does contradict with your first suggestion.

Why must one be forced to read less at the beginning? To decrease the range of votes and make the voting insipid? You've also mentioned: I won't time nor the memory to read everyone's full description of why I should vote for them. Showing only the first words won't make your reading faster, because they are just the first words and don't summarize the info a candidate provided. You'll have to click those "expand" buttons to clarify for yourself, what a candidate was going to say.

Hide the # of votes until the user voted. This is so biased. Heard Mentalty: feeling more secure voting for someone who has 50+ votes than with someone who has 30 even if they are much stronger than the other candidate. Pure herd mentality.

There I can't say anything about others, but as for me, as I've already said, I learned pretty much about the candidates in the previous phase and vote based on my own preferences. If you can't decide yourself whom you'd like to vote for, don't vote then?..

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .