Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Vote on Future Extra History Topics! (Patreon)

Published:
2016-04-23 17:04:03
Imported:
2026-06

Content

What topics would you like us to cover on Extra History? Let us know in this series vote - science and economy edition!



Link: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/p/w2uU7wRD?qid=821334

Deadline: April 26, at midnight PST

Schedule: Early Christian Schisms --> First Opium War --> The Gracchi Brothers --> Your Vote!

Results are decided by an Approval Voting system. You can select as many topics as you want, and whichever has the most consensus wins!

Files

What topic(s) would you like Extra History to cover?

What topic(s) would you like Extra History to cover?

Comments

Tiberia Prima

James talked about the unlikeliness of paper money a while ago on a Lies episode. Should be fun, I hope we see that one soon :3

rohit Ramesh

Good lord. You are awful people. Making my vote worthless by proposing 4 awesome topics. Out of curiosity, will the paper money series be heavily based on content from "Debt: the first 5000 years"?

Øyvind Wallentinsen

So hard to decide. I would like to see both Lady of the Atom and Paper Money. Tried voting for both, but I guess my mouse glitched, because when I hit the second box nothing happened and I assumed I could only vote for one. Oh well. Looking forward to this either way.

Trevor Sullivan

Couldn't decide between Oil and Paper Money

Dani McKenzie

Could we have topics from the previous votes be included. I would love the opportunity to revisit voting on topics.

ExtraCredits
>>1692254

Me reading your post: ............. D: Why? ............. >:) YES -- As for your question, I don't know yet! James hasn't officially started researching these yet since they're just in the hypothetical stage, but he may have a book or two in mind.

ExtraCredits
>>1692365

Topics from previous votes do come back! For example, every fifth voting session is a special session where only the topics that have come in last place are on the ballot. (Sometimes, you have to make sure that the unpopular history gets made, too!) There's also a vote where we revisit patron-suggested topics that didn't win. As for the rest, which don't fall into either of those categories, we just bring them back whenever they're a good fit for the ballot! You'll see them again.

ExtraCredits
>>1692262

Eep! I double-checked the settings and the poll says that multiple-option voting should be turned on. But if anyone else has this problem, please let me know and I shall troubleshoot it!

Antti Björklund

Yay, first time I can vote! I went for Descartes... but Marie Curie is a good second choice for me.

Marco Honrade

All 4 great topics, So hard to decide. I know this has been suggested ad nauseam but it would be nice if we had a ranking or preferential voting system. The problem with approval voting is that it assumes I equally want each topic I voted for, so I generally ended up bullet voting for the one want the most even if I do like all of them, which to me defeats the purpose of having approval voting. Aside from that do you guys have any idea how the "History of Paper Money" would be covered? It would seem disorganized to cover from Song Dynasty China to President Nixon.

ExtraCredits
>>1693752

Basically, I'm willing to transfer to any voting system that works well for our purposes. "Our purposes" essentially requires two conditions be met: 1) Easy for patrons to understand and 2) easy for me to run on the backend. Thus far, I haven't heard of a (free) online polling tool that handles ranked voting gracefully, so it's mostly the second condition we keep falling flat on. I remain totally open to being convinced, though, as approval voting is a system that another Patron convinced me to adopt long ago! And for your final question, we are going to do some timeline hopping with that series, but James does currently plan to cover China in the series. My impression - which may not be correct, as I only spoke about it with James briefly - is that it would follow much of the same pattern that you'll soon see in Early Christian Schisms, where we also do a lot of forward hopping through time to get to and from the moments we want to discuss.

ExtraCredits
>>1692682

Descartes is such a prime example of why (after the first few votes) I asked James to start providing me with subtitles. I had no idea he was ever a mercenary, but that little detail just makes the story so much more enticing!

Jessica Cheeri

I've missed a number of these votes so I don't know, but has the 1880 US Pres election been suggested for a topic? I feel that one could be timely.

Joshua Kristoff

A preferencial system would be like, you rank the votes and so if my number 1 vote was the looser, my second would be counted. Like Marco said, it would be much more fair for fans. Especially when the votes end so closely sometimes.

ExtraCredits
>>1705328

It's not that I don't understand preferential voting systems, but that I know of no free online tools that run them well. If you do know of one, I'm all ears! Also, based on my understanding of these systems, I'd lean towards a weighted ranking vote where your #1 vote got let's say 3 points, your #2 vote got 2 points, #3 got 1 point, and #4 got 0 points. I have concerns that this would make things too complicated but I am amenable to trying it if I can find the right tool.

ExtraCredits
>>1704780

It has not, although we do have the Gracchi Brothers coming up, so there are going to be some voting shenanigans on the show right around September.

Marco Honrade

Fair enough, I too can't find a free online voting service with ranked voting that's user friendly, but I thought of a cheaper alternative based on your response to another patreon. On freeonlinesurvey.com, we could run the vote as a survey with 'star rating' question instead of a straight poll. We would rate each topic 1-10. This is known as Cardinal Voting. Approval voting is the simplest form of cardinal voting with approve being 1 and disapprove being 0; however using this would allow more tailored responses. For example i would've vote 10 points for Descartes, 9 points for Paper Money, 6 points for Curie, and 2 points for Oil rather than 1 vote for Descartes, Paper Money, and Curie and 0 vote for Oil. The winner would be the topic with the highest average. Since the EC community is greater than 1000 people, we would need to pay the 180 dollars annual subscription. However that is only 15 dollars a month and I am sure many of us would gladly increase our pledges for a more fair system for choosing topics.

ExtraCredits
>>1714831

I wouldn't even ask anyone to increase their pledges or set it for a milestone. I would just do it. But I started a test poll using the star rating feature and in my opinion, this option falls down on the first condition, which is that it be understandable to patrons. Here's what the results page looked like: <a href="http://puu.sh/oAeIJ/3e3012d31f.png" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://puu.sh/oAeIJ/3e3012d31f.png</a> --------------- Basically, FOS turned each vote into an average rating from 1-4. In my opinion - which is open to disputation of course - that's not a satisfying vote method since it abstracts everyone's votes and makes the vote count less obvious. I also can't randomize the order, so this gives subconscious preference to whatever topic I put first. It also forces you to give a rating to every topic, which isn't an insurmountable problem (1 star could become the equivalent of "No Interest / No Vote") but it's definitely not ideal. Basically, there are ways you could wrangle this system to MAKE it work, but it doesn't do it well enough to meet the standards I've laid out.

Marco Honrade
>>1714831

I figured there would be more issues. I would like to see how it play out with a larger sample size with a mock test vote with the commnuity, but I don't want to push more burdens onto you. Well it was just a suggestion: I wouldn't change the voting system without asking the community if we want a new system first. I agree cardinal voting does obfuscate the effect of single person's vote, but I don't see how it's hard to understand. The Extra History community is fairly smart and rational. The instructions are simple rate any topic(s) you wish, highest average rating wins. For the results, the only portion that decides the topic is the weighted average which is represented with the star graphic on the bottom and the weighted average column. Unless you checked the "required question" box, voters don't have to rate every topic only the ones they wish to vote for or against. Also, more stars would be more preferable since that would give voter more options and reduce the likelihood of ties. While it may be more straightforward to say a topic won by 1 vote, winning by 0.1 stars is more democratic, since for our electorate, about 900 people, that requires 90 people to rate it 1 star higher than second place, or 30 people to rate 3 stars higher if using 4 stars. I'm sure there are more issues that would need to be worked out. I'm sorry if I come off as pushy or condescending, but I want to see a system that more representative of the communities preferences. Maybe I'm just venting my frustrations with the current US electoral system. The general election really is making think about what make a good electoral system. Even we don't adopt a better system, Approval voting is better than the previous plurality voting.

Dani McKenzie
>>1692365

Thanks! And yes, unpopular history deserves to be told. :-) Heh. Love this series.