As suggested back in early Jan! -


It is I think the best way to go
a. It fully integrates the procedures and records of this "Top 50 Missing" aspect into the rest of the site
b. It utilises "logic" already developed - with a new dB and a few extra/different rules. Sign ins, displays for voting and totalling etc etc
c. It provides a means to have a "page" for each "Top 50 nominee" - even if not on the T List. That way details about the nominated site, links etc can be recorded for reference and to help people deciding how to vote or wanting to jog their memory
d. The number of votes allowed can be tuned - even if not 50 - to give a meaningful result - and we each have a ("visible" to all via our individual page) record of what our current votes are!
e. The voting can take place all the time as new people join, new proposals are added and views change in the light of discussions.

What we need then will be a "process" to add/delete nominations - a process which would be "completed" when the Webmaster updates the "top 50 missing" dB. We could start a new "topic" for "Top 50 Missing Nominations" with nominations and discussions as to whether they should be "accepted" or not. Our original process was that a site needed at least 1 "seconder" to gain acceptance. Perhaps 2 or 3 might be better? A "notification" would be required so that users can "know" that there is an additional site which they could vote for. Where they wished to do so they would of course have to "cancel" an exisitng vote if they had already voted to the maximum allowed. Whether we need a "deletions" process we can decide later depending on how long the list gets. In some ways it is of interest to keep a record of all nominations. The "normal" display could be just for the "top 50" with an "expansion" facility similar to the logic for "visited site counts".
One "advantage" of deleting could be to "concentrate" votes - presumably all sites should get at least 2 votes (nominee and seconder?) but if all sites with fewer than (say) 5 votes were removed then the votes so "freed" would be avaialble for use elsewhere - a decision for later?

We also need to decide what to do when a "top 50 Missing" gets inscribed. Possibly just remove it completely - but we have logic already for sites "once on the T List but now removed" - could do something similar?

The list would roughly look like this
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/allmissing.php

Anymore suggestions?
I have not finished adding all the links, but the top ones have URL's
If it is on the T List, I grab that description. Otherwise I use the one at our Forum

Re descriptions
a. The UNESCO T List descriptions are often close to useless!
b. We haven't always put up separate "descriptions" at the Forum - we did partially in the "original" list and could "insist" on doing so in future. The "gap" could be covered by a "cut and paste" from the forum?? I wonder if there should be a new "high level" forum ("Top 50 Missing nominations"?) with a separate "topic" for each nominated site thus keeping a "clean" discussion for each. Only those "accepted" onto the official list (by whatever process we agreed) would of course appear on the Website list

If EVERY nomination had a seprate Forum topic then that could be used as the prime description whether the site was on the T List or not thus covering the "arguments" for against. Those wihch were on the T List could have the link to the UNESCO site as a separate link (and to any other relevant ones?)

wouldn't this be overly cumbersome? I do have a general idea about my 20 top sites but will have nothing to add to a discussion forum on some of the nominations that do not interest me at all...

I would prefer if we do the voting and then discuss the results - that promises to be a far more fascinating discussion

By all means - but what about those who will vote later and haven't been involved in the discussions to date. Or just those who browse the site - why is Maldive Atoll on the list for instance? And what on earth was "Divided cities along the German border"?
And are we (or others) never going to add to/alter the list?
Personally I regard the arguments for/against as being of more interest than a passing vote by a self selected group of "n" fans.
And aren't we going to have any discussions about the results? I wasn't proposing any more discussions before the vote. Just preparing the design so that it can have meaningful descriptions and discussions (either immediately or in future) shouldn't be need to hold up the "big vote"!

We have to maintain the secrecy of voting and intermediate result should not be displayed to all. It may affect the final result. such as
Quiçama and Kaieteur National Park are given 1each.

It is advisable to hide the intermediate result and the total result should be displayed after closure of voting

I definitely agree, it will severely skew the results.

I've finished the technical work, so that part is ready for voting.

How I want to pursue:
- Announce the vote on the main page via a banner
- Also email all users to announce this project
- Close temporarily for new subscriptions
- Start voting on Feb 15, and announce the winners on March 1
- Will hide the results until March 1 (as requested above)

After that I'd like to go on with it in a continuous mode (if the project above has proven to be succesful / worthwhile enough), meaning:
- let new users add their votes, and current users modify their votes
- delete sites that have become WHS
- add new potential sites once a year or so (nominated and discussed continuously via the Forum)

Hope you can all live with this, it is difficult to create a process that suits everyone 100%.

I consider this procedure a very good solution.

I also agree with the suggested procedure.

Thanks Els for the work, I am happy with this.

Thanks Els for your effort. Fine by me too.

Thanks for your work. Could we restrict the number of votes by one member to exact 20? In visited sites case, one can visit either one site or 900 sites. However here one can only vote for 20. He can not vote even less than 20

I've restricted it to a maximum of 20. If you add more, it will result in an error message and results aren't saved. Less than 20 is possible. Why not? If you've no more that you're interested in to vote for, that's OK. As I said already before, I personally will probably just reach 20.

Experiences so far - maintaining "secrecy" but providing a bit of a "teaser" without issuing a "spoiler"!
a. I am not suggesting (yet again!) that we change the initial "vote for" number but I found that getting from around 35 down to 20 was "unsatisfactory" in that sites which (IMHO) were just as significant as those which remained were having to be removed somewhat randomly. Tomorrow I would (will?) probably choose a significantly different 20 from the 35!
b. As I have visited 11 of my 20 that aspect may have had a disproportionate impact on my final selection
c. 13 of them are on the T List - surprising really that it isn't higher and it shows (again IMHO) that we have identified some "excellent" additional potential sites!
d. More interestingly, 6 of them were identified in this latest round of looking at the subject ("2014 version") - again it suggests that the latest exercise was "worthwhile" (or that "novelty" counts!)