10
$\begingroup$

As we announced a few weeks ago, there is a new user interface for voting in moderator elections. Math Overflow will be the first Stack Exchange community to use the new UI when voting for your election begins today.

If you encounter any bugs with the new voting UI, please list them below as answers. The Public Platform development team will monitor this post until Apr 13, 2021 and respond to bug reports.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No bugs to report, just want to thank. I like it very much, convenient, easy to use, comfortable, efficient, informative. $\endgroup$ Apr 10 at 12:40
6
$\begingroup$

update: this is fixed now; one piece of info which I think is still missing, is that you should only rank those candidates whom you consider suitable for the position. The way it is phrased now, and the way the voting box asks for "Drag next selection here", might give the impression that all candidates have to be ranked.

I copy from Catija's answer: The other caveat is that you should only rank candidates you wish to win the election, do not rank a candidate who you feel is a bad choice for the position! If you dislike a candidate but vote for them anyway, there is a (unlikely) chance that your vote may actually go to that candidate - who you don't want to win.


the page where we can vote says at the top "Each voter may select up to three candidates." But elsewhere on the same page it says "When voting, you may select as many or as few candidates as you would like." Which is it?

enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ The latter screen shot comes from why you clicl on "Learn More" in the voting box. $\endgroup$ Apr 5 at 20:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ More clarity about the exact mechanics for how the vote works would be great, too. I believe it is some kind of ranked choice vote. But I fear that a ranked choice vote where multiple candidates are elected could be gamed/lead to counterintuitive results... $\endgroup$ Apr 5 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ I asked separately about the exact mechanics of the vote: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/4972/… $\endgroup$ Apr 5 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ Good point. If the answer to this is "up to 3", then the software should not allow one to put more than 3 candidates on the ballot (as it currently does). $\endgroup$ Apr 5 at 23:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Based on Catija's response to meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/4972/… it seems like the intent is that you can rank any number of candidates. $\endgroup$ Apr 5 at 23:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ChristianRemling based on my understanding of the STV style, restricting the number of candidates that can be ranked actually exacerbates the concerns about gaming the vote and spoilers because people may change their rankings based on people they believe are guaranteed and, instead, vote for second choice as their primary to get them into the second slot. If many people do this, that presumed winner may not win at all. STV is still imperfect as there's cases where everyone shares the same second choice and they end up eliminated first round... but that's somewhat rare. $\endgroup$
    – Catija StaffMod
    Apr 6 at 5:04
  • $\begingroup$ This looks fixed now. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 13:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Catija: I think you misunderstood my comment. I wasn't commenting on what the voting system should be, I was just pointing out that whatever the rules are, the software should enforce them (for example, not let one rank more candidates than is allowed in the voting system, should there be such a cap). $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 14:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We added "You should only rank the candidates you think would make good moderators." to the info box and the voting controls. $\endgroup$
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Apr 12 at 22:03
1
$\begingroup$

In the activity tab of my network profile, comments on election pages appear without a title or a link that specifies where they were written. See last comment on this screenshot.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (Not related to the bug, but François G. Dorais is in fact a logician.) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Apr 8 at 22:13
  • $\begingroup$ We've shipped a fix for this on the site specific activity, but not the network-wide activity. It's difficult for us to fix it on the network-wide activity, so we're only going to fix it on the site specific activity. Great catch, Federico! $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Pollard StaffMod
    May 11 at 15:08
0
$\begingroup$

I can't see any of the content on the election page due to having under 150 reputation when using the site on my iPhone using mobile Safari. While I can't confirm whether or not people with sufficient reputation can use the voting UI on an iPhone, this is what I see:

Screenshot of the full page of the election page - all that is visible is the top bar, header banner, "2021 Moderator Election", the dates and stats are also visible as well as the message "150 reputation is required in order to be able to vote in moderator elections"

All I can see on my phone is the standard elements (top bar, header, footer, banner), the page heading, and the election stats pane before being told "150 reputation is required in order to be able to vote in moderator elections".

While that's certainly true, I should be able to see the three election phases even without sufficient reputation. I'd be interested to know if anyone else with an iPhone is having a similar experience accessing the page when they do have sufficient reputation.

iPhone 11 Pro, iOS 14.4

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I can see all candidates on an iPhone with mobile Safari, but only after I have logged in (with sufficient reputation). Before logging in I see the same thing as in your screenshot. $\endgroup$ Apr 6 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for checking! It's good to know that only <150 rep users have this issue. $\endgroup$
    – Catija StaffMod
    Apr 6 at 14:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .