I concur with Els that we should have a free choice including all WHS. The prominence idea is also great as anyone willing to make an informed choice can look it the discussions and reasoning and then vote freely. I personally had my top 400 and top 200 and I removed some of my top 100 sites based on the discussion. Still I won't follow the reasonings religiously and in some cases there will be overrepresentations and underrepresentations based on one's own preferences.

After this rather long ''reflection period", will we be voting any time soon? Ideally, before the new additions of 2016.

I agree it would be nice to proceed with the voting. Two issues remain open:
1) Some sites which went up the bold list, although they did not enjoy a high majority and should hence be demoted to italic.
2) The significance of our group rating for the individual voting has not been determined. Some (including myself) suggested that we should vote out of a shortlist decided upon by the entire community (we talked about a shortlist of about 400 sites). The alternative was to let everyone vote out of the entire list leaving our current rating as a reference only.
Once these two issues are resolved, which I do not hold to be an insurmountable obstacle, we could start with the voting.

It would seem that the people who would feel constrained by voting on this "limited" list probably feel more strongly about it than those of us who feel that a more statistically "useful" result would come from a shorter voting list! So - to get things moving I am prepared to accept a vote on the full list -albeit with the results of our "combined wisdom and experience" being made available!!
I guess it will be quite interesting to see how many still vote for sites (and which ones!!) which our "reasoned and documented arguments" (!!!) have not pulled out as "Top 200" (bold) or "400" (italics) material!! I will still view the "Community List" as having an assessed credibility which the "Populist List" will not - though maybe I might be "forced" to reconsider my assessments in some cases!!!
As such I agree with Assif that any "in doubt" sites with low or marginal voting should be removed from bold - hopefully that would get the lists down more closer to a 200/200/600 split on Top/Medium and Low "quality"!! Which seems %age wise to be "about right"

Before we start voting, I'd like to finalize the results of our "Community List", and save them somewhere that it will stay accessible (somewhere in a subgroup with the Missing list maybe?).

The list is here:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/allbyrank.php

- Maybe we could fill in the blanks for the 'Recommended sites' where there are no reasons given yet (>> only for the A-list, 4 WHS)
- It would be nice to have an introduction about how this list was created. I'll try and grab some thoughts from this topic, and you can review it / add to it.

Excellent BUT - what sequence is this list in? And perhaps more importantly what sequence would be most useful? It needs to be at least something one can use quickly to "find" a site.
PS it's by UNESCO ref number isn't it? Not unfortunately particularly useful!!
It needs to be the same as he voting list doesn't it. Might it be better to have a single list with the community category and reason shown?

it's by year of admission

would by category be best? we still have the plan to rearrange the categories, Í don't know if that's a problem (I could "freeze" these)

P.S.: see the example at http://www.worldheritagesite.org/allbyrank.php ; I would still separate the A-list from the B-list and the C-list

Do you know how long you plan to keep the voting period open? I'll be traveling this month, and I'm not sure how often I'll be able to have good internet access.

Also, here are some summaries for three of the sites without summaries:

Nubian monuments: Beautiful Egyptian monuments, including the Abu Simbel temples, rescued from flooding by UNESCO during the construction of the Aswan dam; this action inspired the formation of the World Heritage Committee

Ancient Thebes: Well-preserved temple and necropolis complexes, including the Temples of Luxor and Karnak and the Valley of the Kings

Venice and its Lagoon: Unique architecture and iconic canals in a mercantile city that was once the most prosperous in Europe

Quite long, probably a month or so. I will also send an e-mail to all subscribed users so they are alerted to it. Most people aren't that active as the ones that contribute to the Forum.

I've now saved the results. You can find them under 'Top Lists' in the menu bar.

Yes - I think it is better to show the categories despite their weaknesses and continuing with the 3 sections doesn't really matter as it is quite easy to compare sites from the same category across the sections. Some of the arguments in favour of "Yes" entries now look a bit "thin" but that is the nature of many of the "decisions" I guess!
But what sequence is the voting list to be in and can it show in some way the Community "view" e.g by following the bold/italic/normal convention?
So - 1 voting list of every site but at least with an easy reminder as to what the "community view" was to "assist" voting!!
It might be an idea to avoid a voting list sequenced by Country as we should try to reduce any temptation to vote along patriotic lines!!

Yes indeed, that was I was thinking too

Voting has opened!

A little update: 10 people have voted now, and they have only 2 WHS in common (so 2 sites with 10 votes)!

This weekend I will send an e-mail to the broader community to alert them on this project.

Yikes it is pretty tough, I've just gone through casually clicking and over shot by 61!

Has anyone come up with techniques to limit themselves?