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 12 of 12:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  10  11  12

Author Jurre
Partaker
#166 | Posted: 1 Jun 2020 05:06 
Assif:
Maybe we could have a week in a single thread for all regions? I am sure we could still have a few valuable additions.

Could be a good idea, also for transnational proposals. But I do think this extra week - if we should have it - would have to be more restricted in number and quality of proposals. Maybe starting from the gaps in the list to see what might have been overlooked. And if it are proposals in well-trodden categories, a discussion about what that site would effecively add to the List or why it would be a necessary inclusion.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#167 | Posted: 2 Jun 2020 01:51 | Edited by: winterkjm 
During the Addendum period, there should be a course set for Final Voting.

Sjobe:
I'm not sure if there is a need to reduce the sites for final voting.

1st Decision: Do we narrow voting down (2nd round), or include all seconded proposals?
- If we do 'trim' our large # of nominations, how? What is the timeframe?
- If we keep all proposals in final voting, how feasible is this from a IT/web design standpoint?

2nd Decision: Final Voting format - 10 sites per region (C/N balance) or alternative format(s) (for example, # of sites based on number of proposals?)
- If we choose to place restrictions on voting (C/N balance & specific number) how challenging is this from an IT/web design standpoint?
- If we choose few or no restrictions (or limited region-free) voting what are the pros/cons (I have my own opinion based on the 2014 results, but it would be useful to hear other voices)

Here are some quotes from users sharing their ideas: Sorry if I missed anyone (I tried to gather some diverse opinions)

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.

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.

nfmungard:
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.

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 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.

Colvin:
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 Colvin
Partaker
#168 | Posted: 2 Jun 2020 23:36 
Thanks for getting this started winterkjm!

1. I like your initial suggestion that those who have been active in the Top 50 forum topics be the ones to winnow down the list by each selecting their Top 50. I'd prefer that each Top 50 list have an even distribution between regions (say either 8 or 9 per region), with a minimum number of natural sites per region; the remaining sites would be at large sites.

2. Once this list is culled down, I think it would be much easier to consider for the general voting public on this forum. I'd like to have an idea of how many sites would be on the culled list after Step 1, and I'd like to know any technological limitations before making any suggestions on voting options for Step 2.

Author elsslots
Admin
#169 | Posted: 6 Jun 2020 02:01 | Edited by: elsslots 
I'll try to put all the Approved ones in the database today and present them in one nice, readable list on the website.

My vote regarding the 1st decision depends on how long that list is and when I had a second look over it. For now I would not be in favour of trimming it down, as it would be done by all the same people who discussed them first time around.

P.S.: I count 418 distinct ones!

Author Jurre
Partaker
#170 | Posted: 8 Jun 2020 09:44 
It may sound weird, but even with the high number of seconded sites, I still think we missed some that might be eligible. I think we may have not used the possibilities of this site to look at T sites with a high approval rate from the community. I also think the Unesco Biosphere Reserve programme might uncover some worthy sites.

But if they haven't been proposed during the two week window for every region, I guess they wouldn't make it to the Top 50 Missing. But still, I'd like to be complete to be sure we make a good choice.

Author Assif
Partaker
#171 | Posted: 8 Jun 2020 15:43 
Jurre:
I still think we missed some that might be eligible.

I guess you mainly refer to natural sites and I am sure you are right about that. Yet no matter how thorough we may try to be, we will always miss some significant sites unknown to us, both cultural and natural. Since we naturally focus on what we are familiar with, I am sure we miss more natural sites than cultural ones, more African sites than let's say European/North American/Asian sites etc. However, we did dedicate a lot of efforts to compensating for our biases and I think this should suffice for our current endeavour.
This does not exclude starting a new project after the current one, maybe mapping unrepresented ecoregions onto potential WHS candidates for example.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#172 | Posted: 8 Jun 2020 17:48 
Jurre:
I also think the Unesco Biosphere Reserve programme might uncover some worthy sites.

I brought this up here, but the depth of our research has limits and at the time it didn't seem like our users (including myself) had the determination to wade fully into all the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. I do not see this as a final endeavor regarding identifying Top Missing sites. Perhaps in 5 years and dozens of new inscriptions, we will learn about new sites that we consider "Top Missing" or perhaps in years to come we organize "updates" where /when we see fit.

Our number #1 priority at this point is (hopefully) approaching a final step of voting on the Top 50 missing.

Page  Page 12 of 12:  « Previous  1  2  3  ...  10  11  12 
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 ®
 ⇑