Forum:CT Archive/Allowing user votes to count on the FAN page

With the recent discussion over the FAN and the Inquisitorius, I've decided to propose something I've wanted to see happen for a while now. The featured article nominations page, at present, makes it so only Inqvotes count toward an article's promotion. This discourages users from reviewing, I know I had little interest in reviewing on the FAN before I was an Inq. So I'm proposing making the FAN a little more like the good article nominations page in terms of voting. We can all see how successful the GAN has become, and how many people review and vote on articles, and I think the FAN would benefit greatly from using a similar system.

What I'm proposing is a tiered system, where the more user votes an article gets, the less Inqvotes are required for it to pass, with a minimum of 3 Inqvotes required on any nomination. My proposal is as follows: And then any number of user or Inq votes can make up the differences.
 * If an article gets 5 total votes, it needs 5 Inqvotes to pass
 * If an article gets 6 total votes, it needs 4 Inqvotes to pass
 * If an article gets 7 or more total votes, it needs 3 Inqvotes to pass

The snowballing clause of 7 Inqvotes and single-issue voting policy and all other current policies still apply, this only deals with allowing user votes to count and mean less Inqvotes are needed.

I believe this would be a great step forward for the FAN, would encourage users to review and breed potential new Inqs in the process. Please discuss if you have any questions or concerns, and discuss before creating any vote-splitting options.

For

 * 1) Grunny  ( talk ) 01:34, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely, strong support on this. I usually don't review on the FAN page, because my vote doesn't mean anything. I have been wondering for a while now if the FAN page will follow a similiar system the GAN page has: user votes should count. This new "tiered" system will definitely encourage users to review on the FAN page.  JangFett  (Talk) 01:49, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I completely and wholeheartedly support this. I think that it will not only encourage more users to get involved in FA voting&mdash;thus resulting in more knowledgeable users and therefore more quality article writers and reviewers&mdash;but also speed up the entire FAN process, as well, so noms won't sit on the page for too long. Jonjedigrandmaster  Jedi symbol.svg ( We seed the stars ) 01:55, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 01:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 02:25, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Absolutely. I would definitely review more articles if I knew my votes actually counted for something. Xicer9 [[Image:atgar.svg|20px]]( Combadge) 02:27, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) --Eyrezer 02:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 02:38, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Thefourdotelipsis 02:42, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Baby steps. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 02:49, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Go incrementalism! - Lord Hydronium 02:50, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Increments are the surest path to progress. Graestan ( Talk ) 03:26, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) I support increments.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 03:36, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Per everybody. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:13, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) -- 1358  (Talk) 05:21, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) ToRsO bOy 06:23, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17)  QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 08:52, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Snowball!  CC7567  (talk) 09:25, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) People want their votes to count.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 09:31, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Excellent. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:10, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I've thought something like this would be a good idea for a long time. It would need to achieve two things: firstly, not lower the standard of our FAs or slow down the process; secondly, encourage more people to be active in reviewing, hopefully with the flow-on effect of producing more members of the Inq. I'm confident this change will produce the second outcome and overcome the ambivalence numerous users have expressed over reviewing when not a member of the Inq. As to the first outcome, while I'd prefer to keep the Inq requirements no lower than 4, I'm willing to give these levels a try. --Eyrezer 02:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eyrezer on having no less than 4 Inqvotes for any given article. —Tommy 9281 09:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's too much of a baby step. Considering it's hard enough getting three Inq votes on some of these things, four isn't going to help the situation much. Thefourdotelipsis 09:37, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, that's where we differ. I'm not voting for this as some kind of baby step to eventually get rid of the Inq, which seems to be what you are others are suggesting. --Eyrezer 12:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why in God's name would I want to get rid of the Inquisitorius? Something that was mine and Ataru's brainchild in the first place? I'm suggesting that there's a problem on the FAN page, and to be honest with you, if there are nominations from August that have had a sum total of three Inquisitors actually look at them, and that's not a problem, then I'm a tad worried. All I'm saying is that three Inquisitors gives you a good enough sampling of that particular body's reviewing skills, not even accounting for the fact that some regular voters might actually have the ability to perform a cohesive and informed peer review, while also allowing for a degree of streamlining and the actual potential to get these nominations off the page at a rate that will satisfy a less-than-year-long queue, which incidentally isn't good enough when you consider that we are still showcasing one featured article a day. The articles are out there, both in droves on the FAN page and, due to whatever reason, off the FAN page, but it's undeniable that they need to be moved. The fact that I'm supporting reform doesn't mean I'm screaming for blood. I don't see why it should. If I wanted to destroy the Inq, I wouldn't be supporting a measure that will likely endear it in the eyes of the regular user, if passed. Thefourdotelipsis 12:22, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole thing brings a fairly essential question to mind, though. What is an Inq? Why should their votes count more? What separates an Inq from a regular user in such a degree that they receive special voting rights? By opening up the FAN system to all users because the Inq is not efficient enough, you are merely addressing an annoying symptom. The question of the Inq's relevance will be a larger issue if this CT passes. --Imperialles 13:19, May 9, 2010 (UTC)