World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Top 50 Missing www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Top 50 Missing /  
 

Top 50 Missing - 2020 version

 
 
Page  Page 11 of 12:  « Previous  1  ...  9  10  11  12  Next »

Author Jurre
Partaker
#151 | Posted: 14 May 2020 17:36 
Colvin:
I'm not sure I see your point, but this should probably be taken to the Whiteboard.

Oops, indeed. Posted it in the wrong thread.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#152 | Posted: 18 May 2020 03:30 
Assif:
It would be interesting to analyse Australia/China/India on a state/province basis.

I think there are some more countries/regions that would benefit from a closer look: Iran, Philippines, South-East Asia.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#153 | Posted: 18 May 2020 16:36 
Jurre:
I think there are some more countries/regions that would benefit from a closer look: Iran, Philippines, South-East Asia.

Not sure. I think the US is pretty unique in size to inscribed sites. Same is true for Canada and Russia as these are just huge places. If I look at the map of Asia, I don't feel like the dot density is a problem per se.

Author Assif
Partaker
#154 | Posted: 27 May 2020 17:15 
Now that we are almost finished with LatinA-Caribbean, it will be important to decide how to proceed: addendum (yes/no, if so how long and for which regions), do we want to reduce the number of sites for each region and how? Do we want to impose conditions on the voting (stratifying for regions as well as cultural/natural)? How are we going to accomplish that? What timeline do we want to pursue?

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#155 | Posted: 27 May 2020 18:05 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Equal # per region and mechanism for C/N balance
Africa - 5 selections (2 natural or mixed)
Arab States - 5 selections (2 natural or mixed)
Asia and the Pacific - 5 selections (2 natural or mixed)
Europe and North America - 5 selections (2 natural or mixed)
Latin America and the Caribbean - 5 selections (2 natural or mixed)
*user is not restricted to only 2 natural selections, but cannot propose less than two per region

I would still be favor of this, but with a couple tweaks.

1st - Expand voting to 10 per region (4 natural/mixed)
2nd - Addendum, all interested users post their TOP 50 (titles/country only) in a new thread

All sites listed in peoples Top 50 are automatically included in the final voting pool after tallying such posts. All sites not included in our users TOP 50 are left-off the final voting pool, when such voting system is spread to all users (regardless of forum participation).

TOP Missing (your user name)

Africa (10 total)
property name (N) (Nigeria)
property name (N) (Kenya)
property name (N) (Chad)
property name (N (South Sudan)
property name (C (Mali)
property name (C) (Ghana)
property name (C (Ethiopia)
property name (C) (Namibia)
property name (C) (South Africa)
property name (C) (Sierra Leone)
*you are not limited to a maximum of 4 natural sites, you can select more

Arab States (10 total)
property name (N) (Egypt)
property name (N) (Algeria)
property name (N) (Sudan)
property name (N (Iraq)
property name (C (Jordan)
property name (C) (Egypt)
property name (C (Morocco)
property name (C) (Tunisia)
property name (C) (Somalia)
property name (C) (Kuwait)
*you are not limited to a maximum of 4 natural sites, you can select more

This would continue with Asia & the Pacific, Europe and North America, and lastly Latin America and the Caribbean.

Once users like Jurre, Els, Meltwaterfalls, Assif, nfmungard, csarica, FredericM, Sjobe, Colvin, jonathanfr, Zoe, mrayers and more create/post their TOP 50 selection (no arguments or discussion needed). All of these sites are tallied up and Final Voting are limited to these sites with everything else being "cut". The final result after voting? We will truly have a Top 50 Missing List (only 50 sites) that covers every geographic region and balances cultural and natural sites that went through a in-depth process before being identified by our community as exceptional. For Top 50 Missing posts, we may only get 10-20 posts in total. but the final voting might reach up to 100 or more, since many users who frequent this website do not post frequently.

We need solutions for a more manageable voting pool. This proposed path forward would bring our rather large list of seconded sites (around 500), hopefully down to about 100-150. All seconded properties will need more complete information, probably in a more condensed format and a single link. There would be significant work involved to create the voting mechanism that is embedded into worldheritagesite.org as was done in the past, particularly around restrictions per region and C/N balance. I feel strongly about this last element, because if we can vote (no restrictions at all) there will be plenty of users (maybe not active forum members) who go for 20 US sites out of their 50. Or 10 Indian sites, or 10 French sites, or 10 Chinese sites (you get the picture). It lends itself to abuse around nationalistic voting and limits around countries of familiarity. Also because natural sites in general are less well known, only a handful of sites would be voted in the Top 50 because many users might select 40+ cultural sites, if not more.

Why 10 per region? First we get to 50 TOP Missing, which should be a list of world class sites that should stand out for their OUV and/or under-represented culture/ecosystem. I expect some users still disagree with exact representation per region, but I cannot identify a fair # that is proportional? You could go by land area, population, total of already inscribed WHS, or other criteria, but I tend to lean toward simple and straight/forward as best. Ten per region does just that. In every one of the major regions designated by UNESCO there are countries that are major centers of influential civilizations and/or filled with vast areas of wilderness that lends itself toward multiple Top Missing sites. For Arab States you have Egypt. For Latin America & Caribbean you have Brazil and Peru. For Europe and North America you have the US and Russia. For Asia & the Pacific you have India and China. For Africa, you have Kenya and Ethiopia. I think it will be hard to choose just 10 in any region. If we start breaking it down to 7 for one region, 12 for another, and so on, we risk our biases in determining what region gets what type of representation on our list.

Author FredericM
Partaker
#156 | Posted: 27 May 2020 20:04 
winterkjm:
I expect some users still disagree with exact representation per region, but I cannot identify a fair # that is proportional?

I agree with about everything you propose. But how about we let users some freedom in the representation of regions? I think we can all agree that all region are not equal in great missing sites (looking at the number of proposal in between regions also suggest that). Thus, why suggesting an equal number of sites for each. I would propose something like 7 sites per region (with maybe 3 naturals?), plus 15 region-free sites according to gaps or OUV that seem more important to each user. The total would remain 50. What do you think?

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#157 | Posted: 28 May 2020 00:42 | Edited by: winterkjm 
I certainly wouldn't oppose it if others preferred that format. 15-region free sites seems a bit high, but I think your suggestion is very reasonable and worth consideration. I would be fine either way, what is most important for me is some restrictions in place that address the inevitable pitfalls of voting that can be harmful to the spirit of this endeavor. Which is nationalistic voting, moreover voting for sites only based on areas/regions you are well aquatinted.

We should also remember that many voters will not have been following our discussions. They will see a voting survey and start selecting sites, the default for many such voters will be special sites from home or name recognition (example #34 Mount Rushmore Top Missing List 2014). Also we should not forget that our Top Missing List in 2014 included 1 single site from Africa out of 117 nominations that received votes. This tells me that our discussions/posts over the last month would be cheapened if no structure was in place. On a personal level, I don't want a simple survey of BEST sites in the World, like those you see all over the internet, that take 5 minutes or less. This is a TOP Missing list, based on well-thought out proposals, criteria for OUV, and representation. This is not really about what places are the "coolest" or most famous.

Author Assif
Partaker
#158 | Posted: 28 May 2020 16:01 
I feel uncomfortable assigning the same number of candidates per region, but I agree with winterkjm this might be the easiest solution. Allowing "region-free" candidates will automatically go in favour of Europe/North America.

I further support the approach proposed by winterkjm to reduce the number of sites per region.
Are we comfortable with a 60-40 ratio between cultural and mixed/natural. Considering how underrepresented natural sites are I would propose 50-50.

Furthermore, we haven't come to an agreement about the addendum proposed by winterkjm. I think that after having researched different categories on the internet, many of us might have come across interesting proposals for regions that have been already discussed. I would embrace a three day extension for all regions, meaning that for three days new sites could be proposed and seconded for all regions simultaneously.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#159 | Posted: 28 May 2020 19:55 
Assif:
Allowing "region-free" candidates will automatically go in favour of Europe/North America.

Most likely.

Assif:
I would embrace a three day extension for all regions, meaning that for three days new sites could be proposed and seconded for all regions simultaneously.

This could work, but it might be over-whelming for users to follow or track? Could a separate thread be open and closed in a 3-day period? On top of this, could proposals be limited to 1 final proposal per user?

Author Colvin
Partaker
#160 | Posted: 28 May 2020 23:16 
winterkjm:
Could a separate thread be open and closed in a 3-day period? On top of this, could proposals be limited to 1 final proposal per user?

If we really need additional time for proposals for earlier regions, this seems fair.

winterkjm:
I certainly wouldn't oppose it if others preferred that format. 15-region free sites seems a bit high, but I think your suggestion is very reasonable and worth consideration.

If our proposals are going to be limited to UNESCO regions of the country that owns a territory rather than geographical region, then I am absolutely in favor of additional region-free sites. Europe and North America is a challenging enough UNESCO region without having to consider territories that exist in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Still, fifteen region-free sites seems a bit high; I'd prefer something more like nine per region (minimum four natural/mixed), leaving five region-free sites.

Author mrayers
Partaker
#161 | Posted: 29 May 2020 03:14 | Edited by: mrayers 
Assif:
I feel uncomfortable assigning the same number of candidates per region, but I agree with winterkjm this might be the easiest solution. Allowing "region-free" candidates will automatically go in favour of Europe/North America.

One possibility would be simply to scale the number of votes per region according to the number of nominations for each region, for example:

Africa 72 (nominations) > vote for 7
Arab 60 > 6
Asia/pac 126 > 11
Eur/NAm 124 > 11
LA/Car 58 > 5
"wildcards"* > 10 from any region

And I am almost afraid to suggest this, but with 440 accepted nominations at the moment, might it be more appropriate to go with a "Top 100 missing" list?

* I like the idea of being able to vote for extra sites in regions according to personal preference, but I imagine this could be rather challenging for Els/Nan to implement from a coding perspective.

Author Sjobe
Partaker
#162 | Posted: 29 May 2020 06:29 | Edited by: Sjobe 
I find a bit difficult to follow the discussion about the process of voting. Could someone please explain the current idea thoroughly. Am I correct:

1) At first we "truncate" our massive list of seconded sites by first round of voting?
winterkjm:
1st - Expand voting to 10 per region (4 natural/mixed)

winterkjm:
2nd - Addendum, all interested users post their TOP 50 (titles/country only) in a new thread

To me these two stages together sounds like a massive and time consuming operation, and it could generate a big amount of sites to the final voting. Does it enough cut down the sites for voting? And I'm not sure if there is a need to reduce the sites for final voting.

2) Then is the final (second round) voting?
- Who can vote?
- How many sites can be voted per person? Is it one vote per site, or is it some kind of a point system?

- - - - -

Then to other questions:

FredericM:
I think we can all agree that all region are not equal in great missing sites (looking at the number of proposal in between regions also suggest that). Thus, why suggesting an equal number of sites for each.

I completely agree with this.

FredericM:
I would propose something like 7 sites per region (with maybe 3 naturals?), plus 15 region-free sites according to gaps or OUV that seem more important to each user.

I would go even further: 5 sites per region and 25 region-free. But if there will be users own TOP 50 -lists, those lists could be strongly biased towards own region anyway, so maybe then is not that much need for region-free sites.

Assif:
Allowing "region-free" candidates will automatically go in favour of Europe/North America.

Is it really so? I don't see that my own voting would go that way. I hope we could be more objective with this, but yes, I guess there is always a risk for patriotism.

Assif:
I would embrace a three day extension for all regions, meaning that for three days new sites could be proposed and seconded for all regions simultaneously.

After so long and thorough discussions and tons of proposals I don't see that much point here. Would this really produce more sites that are really important?

winterkjm:
Could a separate thread be open and closed in a 3-day period? On top of this, could proposals be limited to 1 final proposal per user?

This could be a good idea.

Author Assif
Partaker
#163 | Posted: 29 May 2020 15:43 | Edited by: Assif 
winterkjm:
On top of this, could proposals be limited to 1 final proposal per user?

Maybe one cultural and one natural?

Sjobe:
After so long and thorough discussions and tons of proposals I don't see that much point here. Would this really produce more sites that are really important?

I think our discussion improved over time. For example, I don't think we covered Africa at the same depth as for example Latin America/Caribbean. I know I didn't. The IUCN document about gaps in Africa posted by winterkjm clearly shows there are significant gaps we failed to address. Burundi, for example, is mentioned in two contexts in this study, whereas we have no single proposal for this country.

Sjobe:
To me these two stages together sounds like a massive and time consuming operation, and it could generate a big amount of sites to the final voting. Does it enough cut down the sites for voting? And I'm not sure if there is a need to reduce the sites for final voting.

Extending the user's choices to 50 rather than 25 is not time consuming, at least not for the community. It means you have to choose more worthy sites.
The second proposal attempts to trim down the total number of candidates before they are made available to the larger voters circle.

Sjobe:
2) Then is the final (second round) voting?
- Who can vote?
- How many sites can be voted per person? Is it one vote per site, or is it some kind of a point system?

Every registered user can vote, one vote per site.

mrayers:
And I am almost afraid to suggest this, but with 440 accepted nominations at the moment, might it be more appropriate to go with a "Top 100 missing" list?

I agree.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#164 | Posted: 29 May 2020 17:07 
I think we are overthinking the process a bit too much. There will always be shortcomings. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems#Weakness

By putting side constraints on the voting, we will only make it harder and more complex, but I don't see us achieving much. A constraint should actually make a difference and I doubt they will.

My proposal would still be to stick with the established 5* rating scale and compute the whs.org rating based on that. No regions, not sub classes, just 0 to 5* per site.

Assif:
I think our discussion improved over time. For example, I don't think we covered Africa at the same depth as for example Latin America/Caribbean. I know I didn't. The IUCN document about gaps in Africa posted by winterkjm clearly shows there are significant gaps we failed to address. Burundi, for example, is mentioned in two contexts in this study, whereas we have no single proposal for this country.

Actually feel we tried harder for Africa than for Latin America. But yeah, does feel like we should have a quick round to add sites we found belatedly.

Author Assif
Partaker
#165 | Posted: Yesterday 02:09 | Edited by: Assif 
nfmungard:
But yeah, does feel like we should have a quick round to add sites we found belatedly.

Maybe we could have a week in a single thread for all regions? I am sure we could still have a few valuable additions.

Page  Page 11 of 12:  « Previous  1  ...  9  10  11  12  Next » 
Top 50 Missing www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Top 50 Missing /
 Top 50 Missing - 2020 version

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 ®
 ⇑