Top 50 Missing www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Top 50 Missing /

Top 50 missing - 2014 version

Page  Page 6 of 15:  « Previous  1  ...  5  6  7  ...  14  15  Next »  
Author winterkjm
Registered
#76 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 12:44 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Wouldn't the ratings get diluted if we open voting to more than the sites above? We've had 16 participants who submitted 3 favorite sites. So if we opt for Survey Monkey (an idea I like) we hopefully will surpass 10 voting individuals. If there are 200+ voting options this may weaken the results. The survey should be developed to better reach consensus.

Indeed, I would (as you originally mentioned) remove the 5 sites you (and me) felt did not fit in the Top 50 missing. The lower amount of sites (around 100 or less), will make the results on Survey Monkey far more clear. Therefore, the list above if anything should be slightly trimmed before voting, not expanded.

Beyond the 5 sites Assif mentined, I would also propose to remove Suez Canal (Egypt).

I would 2nd Assifs suggestion of 0-3 (or 0-5) rankings for all the sites listed here by Khuft, but I believe ranking the sites from 1-50 would also work.

Author Assif
Registered
#77 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 14:05 | Edited by: Assif 
I would be also happy to additionally withdraw my proposals of Volgagrad and Tobolsk (both Russia).
On the other hand, if I may, I would be happy to include some of the filling up the gaps proposals. After having withdrawn Volgagrad, Tobolsk, Kolyma, Yalta, Mesdag, modern Vienna and German border towns, I would like to propose the inclusion of the following five:

Gobeklitepe (Turkey) - the oldest settlement in the world, marks the transition to agriculture.
Kuhikugu (Brazil) - the most impressive precolumbian Amazonian site
Monte Verde (Chile) - the oldest site of hominid remains in the Americas
Gobi Desert (Mongolia and China) - the largest desert of Central Asia and the largest cold winter desert
Lena Delta (Russia)

Author hubert
Registered
#78 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 14:20 
winterkjm:
I would 2nd Assifs suggestion of 0-3 (or 0-5) rankings for all the sites listed here by Khuft

Voting seems to be more difficult as it appears on first glance.
From my point of view, the "Michelin system" suggested by Assif is contrary to an important principle: every vote counts equal.
The vote of an individual who is generous in giving 3 stars would have more impact than the vote of an individual who is more reluctant with the highest rank.
On the other hand: 10 equally ranked nominations for each voter will result in a ratio of about 200 votes for the 100 candidates - and the impact of a single vote would be too important.
I think, a good compromise between 'simple' and 'fair' would be the suggestion of paul:
every participant should rank his favourites from 10 to 1. Then, every participant would have 55 points to vote, with about 20 voters we would have a good ratio to the number of candidates.
And survey monkey seems to be a simple tool for such an approach.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#79 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 14:31 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Assif:
Qapaq Nan
Assif:
Panama Canal

Both of these sites are already part of our list.

I would support:

Mongolia/China - Great Gobi Desert (1996) N
Turkey - The Archaeological Site of Göbeklitepe (2011) C
Russia - Lena Delta N

The other 2 sites are great gap-fillers, but seemingly not Top 50 missing.

Author Khuft
Registered
#80 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 17:39 
I fear we are diluting the whole exercise again.

The "Michelin system" will simply lead to the problems that Hubert highlighted. A system where people vote / rate up to 50 sites will be immensely cumbersome.

Therefore I support els's initial thought: everyone just names his / her 10 to 15 favourite sites.

This will be immensely difficult already (I though about it yesterday when I posted the list - and it gets difficult when your tenth slot is either Nan Madol, Scorvegni's Chapel or Babylon) but will ensure each one of us has really considered which ones are THE MOST RELEVANT missing sites. Let there be no doubt: I believe all of the sites mentioned so far are worthy to be considered - but there can only be so many TOP MISSING sites....

Author Khuft
Registered
#81 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 17:46 
Assif:
I would be also happy to additionally withdraw my proposals of Volgagrad and Tobolsk (both Russia).
On the other hand, if I may, I would be happy to include some of the filling up the gaps proposals. After having withdrawn Volgagrad, Tobolsk, Kolyma, Yalta, Mesdag, modern Vienna and German border towns, I would like to propose the inclusion of the following five:

Gobeklitepe (Turkey) - the oldest settlement in the world, marks the transition to agriculture.
Kuhikugu (Brazil) - the most impressive precolumbian Amazonian site
Monte Verde (Chile) - the oldest site of hominid remains in the Americas
Gobi Desert (Mongolia and China) - the largest desert of Central Asia and the largest cold winter desert
Lena Delta (Russia)


Assif, I do not think it is helpful to change the full list now. While I undestand your reasons to delete some of the sites you initially nominated, these were included in the "canonical" original list - if we start questioning that one now, we will never finish.Therefore, I'm not sure it is really ok that you withdraw your "original" sites since they may have been tacitltly accepted by other people. Personally, I would support both Tobolsk as well as Volgograd above all the other sites you mentioned (except Goblekitepe). Thus I really think it's best to first vote on the Top 10 of the existing huge list. Then we can still discuss possible missing sites.

Author Khuft
Registered
#82 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 17:49 
@ Assif, winterkjm: I would strongly suggest that you try the selection of 10 sites out of the huge list. It's really nerve-shattering, as you will not have slots left for new sites. When I thought about it, I had to abandon all the 3 sites I recently suggested (Rushmore, Orchha, Subotica) since none of them make the cut of my own top 10.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#83 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 18:07 
So we can pursue your suggestion of 10 sites through survey monkey, or the traditional listing of sites here. I feel if our submissions are anonymous, the exercise will be far more authentic. The first individuals to post their 10 will inevitably effect how others might, no? I actually already selected my top 15, and can dwindle it down to 10.

Wouldn't this process result in several rounds of voting?

Using survey monkey we could do the initial round of voting for the Top 10 missing. The 10 sites which garnered the most votes would be selected, then we would continue voting the next Top 10 missing. Once we got to 50 (or another fixed number), our list would be complete.

Author Khuft
Registered
#84 | Posted: 8 Jan 2014 18:24 
winterkjm:

Using survey monkey we could do the initial round of voting for the Top 10 missing. The 10 sites which garnered the most votes would be selected, then we would continue voting the next Top 10 missing. Once we got to 50 (or another fixed number), our list would be complete.


I agree with this process.

Author clyde
Registered
#85 | Posted: 9 Jan 2014 01:21 
Me too

Author Assif
Registered
#86 | Posted: 9 Jan 2014 03:32 
Khuft:
Therefore, I'm not sure it is really ok that you withdraw your "original" sites since they may have been tacitltly accepted by other people.


Haven't thought of that, Khuft. You are right.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#87 | Posted: 9 Jan 2014 04:17 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Well it seems like we got a general idea on a path forward. Consensus points to not removing any previously "original" suggestions. Perhaps Meltwaterfalls can make an accurate and complete survey monkey for the initial voting.

Should we have a voting period for a specific length of time? Perhaps a week for the first Top 10 Missing round?

Maybe even a link can be posted on the homepage if Els has a moment! Though I don't want to interrupt her trip. We had (16) members suggest sites, and if the survey is clear and noticeable we might be able to get even more input. Would Metlwaterfalls or whoever creates the survey monkey, be the one who receives the voting results? Or upon completion are the results published for all to see? Would only members be able to vote, or would it be open to all?

Whatever does not make it on the Top 50 missing list can be used as an informal inventory of sites that can be reviewed whenever sites on the Top 50 are inscribed.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#88 | Posted: 9 Jan 2014 11:59 | Edited by: Solivagant 
A few comments on all the above!!
a. Only registered forum users should vote or we will get a "Rohtas Fort syndrome" with half of some high school pupils voting for some site near their town! They could of course still register but we will face that if it occurs. I think it reasonable that we see this list as something put together by "genuine"/knowledgeable WHS enthusiasts!
b. I still feel that the fewer sites we have to vote on the better. 20 people casting votes for eg 10 sites max out of say 100 is likely to give a pretty "spotty" result with a few clear decisions plus a lot of 1,2,3s. I would go so far as to suggest that a site not garnering say 33% of the votes hasn't met the threshold requirement.
c. I am not clear if we are trying to produce a "ranked" list or just a list of "equals" - ie those sites which have passed the threshold. I fear that ranking just creates more compexity and a spurious differential.
d. Is this supposed to be a 1 off exercise or a continuing one? I wouldn't like whatever list we come up with to be set in stone as we get more knowledge and suggestions as well as more registered members. It partly for this reason that i dont see it as very important that we immediately "fill" the list with 50 sites - if we can only agree 25 which pass the threshold then so be it. There would in that case be 75 remaining candidates - less any which are removed by their sponsor. I would let Assif (and anyone else) remove their nominations. That would help concentrate the voting. We also need a process for adding new nominations (or keeping old ones if someone wants to take over a nomination from someone who no longer "believes" in it.
e. lets not rush in with a voting system yet - I still see some benefit in a 2 stage approach. Filter the list by excluding all those which don't get say 3 votes and then have ac2nd round - just like lots of "democracies" do when there are too many choices. One way would be for each of us to maintain our own 50 list from among all those nominated. We could use the same logic as Els uses for sites visited. Then there could be occasional/regular 2nd rounds for only those sites with more than a given number of seletions among individual top 50 lists during which we would have to choose a limited number with "secret" balloting by eg Survey monkey. That would also give each of us the "pleasure" of having our own individual top 50 lists and seeing how much we agree/disagree with the majority.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#89 | Posted: 9 Jan 2014 13:38 | Edited by: winterkjm 
My suggestion is not about ranking, just selecting the Top 10 by round. While the first results of 10 sites will likely be some of the most impressive, I see the Top 50 as more or less a list of equals. Each member would select (10) sites per round, nothing ranked. Whichever sites have the most votes make it on the list. After round 3 (Top 30), we could perhaps review the results and decide about the overall number for "Top 50" missing. It does not have to be 50, but since the original was 50 it seems like generally this is our target. Moreover, I feel that through voting we can select a strong Top 50, I don't (at this point) feel it will be full of non-deserving sites.

This approach promotes honest voting, for example there are key sites that I will vote for in round 1 & 2 that are the absolute most deserving (widely viewed as Top 50), and not necessarily sites that I originally suggested. I will have a chance to pick some of my personal favorites in later rounds. Since each member has plenty of opportunity to participate (vote) they should not feel obligated to select national or personal selections in the early rounds. We are yet to see how this might effect the later rounds, will there be any kind of consensus, who knows, that's why we vote!

I wouldn't mind trimming the list a bit, indeed I promoted this. But the consensus was this was not necessary. While I prefer trimming, ultimately I do not think it makes a huge difference.

As far as the Top 50 missing list being "final", I don't view it this way exactly. It will be nice to have a more complete, agreed list. Yet, I assume that we can revisit the list every year when sites are inscribed. Our original list only had a couple inscriptions, but I feel our new agreed list will likely see more inscriptions.

I think we might have to concede that whatever we create here will not be perfect, sites with only a couple votes (2-3) may make it on the list in the later rounds. But we should also recognize this approach is far superior to the original Top 50 list which has about 10-20 sites that had no consensus.

I REALLY feel that voting on the sites we just went through the process of selecting would be a step backward, and would ultimately decrease the likelihood of a more balanced/deserving group of sites. For example, if the 50 odd sites that were part of everyone's 3 favorites were voted upon, how many European & American sites would stay, how much other sites would not receive 3 votes? This is inevitable based on the majority of this forum being from Europe, no? We got a couple suggestions from non-Europeans, but I fear these would be the first to not receive 3 votes. This does not necessarily mean they are not deserving, but generally a lot of us might not have much knowledge of Indian or Philippine nominations. Yet, if they are part of the voting rounds, they might have a more realistic chance in the later rounds.

Author vantcj1
Registered
#90 | Posted: 9 Jan 2014 16:46 | Edited by: vantcj1 
On trimming the list: while this definitively would divide at first the votes among too many sites, I think this too in the long run would also help get a more repressentative list for the Top 50 or whatever number we get to. I even think that some of the sites from jonathanfr's, Assif's and Khanekhan's extended lists are extremely deserving and still could make into the list (I think e.g. on the Pharaonic Temples of Kom Ombo and Edfu, Gobeklitepe, Vatnajökull, Petrified Forest National Park, Kuhikugu, Monteverde, San Lorenzo de Tenochtitlán, Karoo Desert, Lena Delta, Tempelhof, the Dilwara Temples at Mt Abu, Meenakshi Temple in Madurai).

I share with winterkjm that we should not vote based only in what we know/have visited prior to voting, to avoid a bias. When we get to see on Survey Monkey the final list of options to vote for, some searching is needed. I could, for example, have voted on just Latin American sites on my top three, or proposed Costa Rican sites (Arenal-Monteverde Conservation Area, Guayabo jump to my mind), but I didn´t because here the attempt is to create a really deserving list of sites.

And this doesn´t mean that we should go voting just for sites in countries with no representation in the list, and let chinese or european sites out, or the same with categories of sites, letting out religious monuments, historic centers and so on...but the balance that each one wants to give to their selections. And adding the different visions on what is more deserving, a good balance could be reached naturally.

Page  Page 6 of 15:  « Previous  1  ...  5  6  7  ...  14  15  Next » 
Top 50 Missing www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Top 50 Missing / Top 50 missing - 2014 version Top

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

 

 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
 
 
  www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®