Well this is all really exciting indeed!
I agree with Bagan as possible Number 1. Alternatively Neuschwanstein (didn't get my vote, but hugely famous)?

With regards to the country with 2 sites in the Top 10 - My bet would be China, or USA. As wild guesses: Germany (well-known sites, though not necessarily WHS material in this forum's consensus opinion), Iraq (Ur and Babylon represent massively underrepresented Mesopotamia) or Greece (Knossos and Santorini are well-known tourist places)

Today was a slow day. We're on 85 voters now. No significant changes.

I expect that all the enthousiasts have already voted, and there will be a slow trickle until the end. I still hope for / expect up to 100 voters at Feb 28. A few people have asked to sent lost passwords, in order to be able to vote.

Nobody likes to get too much emails, but perhaps on or around Feb. 25th you can resend the email for all users who have not voted? The email can notify them that there is only 3 days left for voting. It may result in some extra voting just before the deadline, no?

85 is pretty good though for just under a week. I'm sure we'll have well over 100.

Thanks Els for taking action towards my all suggestions.
1. Limiting the sites to 20 and maintaining a user-friendly website.
2. Maintaining the secrecy of the result
3. Posting it in homepage and email to members
4. Not allowing new users during this timeframe (I thought about it)
I could not expect a better voting than this. My only concern is about the number of sites (Obviously I want more than 61) which could be solved after 1 march.

In 2008 there were 61 sites in the top 50 missing list. In 2014 another 61 sites are nominated by 16(reverse) members (Although we do not want to limit it to 61) with detail discussions. Els, can you tell me how many of top 60 (till now) are from the previous list and from new list (nominated by 16 members). It will not affect the result and we can know how our nominations stand against original sites.

32 Original (previous list)

And the cut off now will be at 50 sites. Only more if position 50 is shared with more sites having the equal number of votes.

I also will publish the full list of 119 with their votes for reference.

In what sense will there be a "cut off"? If the result for all 119 is published then there is no "cut off" is there? Or is it proposed that the sites in positions 51- 119 are "removed" from future voting? The only "impact" of the "50" which I can see is that it provided an indication to voters of the "Standard" they should be "looking" for (i.e Top 50 missing) from among the 20 they were allowed to vote for. If we had said "top 20 missing" it would have been more logical and I don't see that it would have altered the result 1 iota! We each had to vote for our "Top 20" not our "Top 50" and the result will be our combined views of our "Top 20" not our "Top 50"! There is no logic in "drawing a line" within the result. The only possible difference I can seen is that some of us wouldn't have nominated some of the sites if we had been producing a "top 20 missing" list

it may be a misunderstanding in language/words used

i am thinking about the same format as this:
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/community.php

so top 50 highlighted (here it is 25), and the next page the full list including all details

Fair enough - but choosing a "visual" cut off at 50 implies to me an additional "meaning" being given to those 50 which is not justified by the process. A visual cut off at 20 would have been more logical IMO. But it is of no real importance - I just wondered what was happening and would not have liked to see sites ranked 51 onwards being genuinely "cut off"!

Since Els highlighted on the Website that we are looking for the Top 50 missing, a visual cut-off at 50 will be expected by viewers...

I would still be in favour for a cut-off: a minimum of votes to qualify for a Top-missing list. With more than 100 voters, a site with only one or two (or even none) votes can hardly be considered as Top-missing!
Those sites with a number of votes below the cut-off could be listed separately in alphabetic order.

At first there are 61"top 50 missing" sites in 2008. In 2014 we felt that there are many sites which deserve to be in top missing sites and the list must be extended (like Jonathanfr).

But, now we are reducing the list from 61 to 50. It is subjected to change every year. So what about the 11 sites and many others get deleted even though they are not inscribed? Shall we create another list once in top 50

Please keep updating like this. Can you post recent update ( i.e. no. of votes for 1st and 50th site and number of sites having 3 or less votes as they are not practically n the race)

to all:
please stop the discussion about numbers, you'll see the full list at the end and you can look at the top-whatever you like

90 voters now, for 117 different sites, no 1 has 49 votes and no 50 has 11
no further changes