Zoochat awards!
- Thread starter phoenix
- Start date
Hmm, I'm sorry. I disagree.
To use the example of award ceremonies for good television shows, the awards are decided by public vote. I've voted in some, having not seen every programme in the category. I vote to give my opinion of something I've enjoyed and that I feel deserves to win.
I've just had a count and I've only visited 17 zoos and aquariums but it doesn't mean I can't recognise a really good exhibit when I see one. But therefore I would be ineligable to vote and give my opinion.
If you're running a poll based on people's opinions, it's best to not start limiting whose opinions you will accept.
If you're running a poll based on people's opinions, it's best to not start limiting whose opinions you will accept.
Fair enough point.
The danger is that those opinions might not be well informed or based on a big enough sample (to use statistical analysis speech) to be considered relevant.
For instance, talk to any music buff and they'll tell you that the records that top the charts (do they still have them?) are not the best records -only their opinion I know, but from those with in-depth knowledge and passion for the subject. There are similar situations in so many other areas of interest.
Then again I might be being way too idealist (it's been noted before
) and I'm sure it'll be fun however it's decided to roll it out.So you're the one who makes the **** programmes win awards
. Sorry it just always seems that the general public has such bad taste (maybe you voted for the better losers).Again, the problem here is that the most-watched programmes (read most-visited zoos) are always likely to have more people voting for them and potentially better unwatched programmes (read lesser visited, or just unvisited, zoos with great exhibits) will have fewer votes. Therefore there's potential for an intrinsic bias towards the more popular zoos.
I know it's arguable that some zoos are more popular because they're "better". This may be true to an extent, but I think location and ease of access can have distorting effects -for instance Thrigby Hall has fantastic crocodilian exhibits but would probably not get many votes because it's geographically distant to most people in the UK and doesn't have large visitor numbers.
Then again, maybe I'm taking things too serious, time for a drink
and a calm down.Lol, I think there's always going to be a danger of a really good exhibit going uncredited. With the sheer amount of amazing exhibits these days, something's going to get missed.
This could always be an annual thing, and there'd be chances to ammend it the following year.
As a quick note, I also don't think blocking newcommers to the forum from voting is a good idea. Not only will it fail to make them feel welcome, but they could be genuine zoo enthusiasts. On the note of zoo management singing up to vote for themselves, are management really going to be that bothered? If you meant non-management staff signing up, then, well, there's already plenty of keepers on here, so y'know.
This could always be an annual thing, and there'd be chances to ammend it the following year.
What would stop people potentially signing up to zoochat just to vote for their own busineses and gain credibility? surely their needs to a be a system to stop this. For example perhaps members who have been here for a few weeks can vote...Or something like that
As a quick note, I also don't think blocking newcommers to the forum from voting is a good idea. Not only will it fail to make them feel welcome, but they could be genuine zoo enthusiasts. On the note of zoo management singing up to vote for themselves, are management really going to be that bothered? If you meant non-management staff signing up, then, well, there's already plenty of keepers on here, so y'know.
This could always be an annual thing, and there'd be chances to ammend it the following year.
True that. I suppose the heated debate following any initial awards would be fun and over a few years the poll might distill down to a pretty accurate summary of things.
Feeling happier now, sip, sip.
So you're the one who makes the **** programmes win awards
Again, the problem here is that the most-watched programmes (read most-visited zoos) are always likely to have more people voting for them and potentially better unwatched programmes (read lesser visited, or just unvisited, zoos with great exhibits) will have fewer votes. Therefore there's potential for an intrinsic bias towards the more popular zoos.
I know it's arguable that some zoos are more popular because they're "better". This may be true to an extent, but I think location and ease of access can have distorting effects -for instance Thrigby Hall has fantastic crocodilian exhibits but would probably not get many votes because it's geographically distant to most people in the UK and doesn't have large visitor numbers.
Then again, maybe I'm taking things too serious, time for a drink
No need to calm down, mate. I'm not getting all antsy about it. I'm sorry if I've come across as worked up at all.
And I agree with location of a zoo affecting its popularity. Exmoor, in my mind, is a really great little zoo but given the local competition and the fact that its not really local to any large city, it gets overlooked.
But then, this would show up in the 'Best small zoo' category, where it can't be overlooked by its bigger and more popular rivals.
On a personal level I would disagree with limiting votes to people who have visited a certain number of zoos. For health reasons I cannot travel by plane for more than a couple of hours. This means 1. I cannot leave my country, which has only a few zoos, and 2. I cannot visit all the zoos that do exist in this country. If it is decided that you have to had to visit say 10 zoos that would count me out. Entirely unfair. Certainly I would not be able to vote on other countries zoos but I don't see why I wouldn't be able to vote on say the best small zoo in Australia.
No need to calm down, mate. I'm not getting all antsy about it. I'm sorry if I've come across as worked up at all.
No worries man, I was referring to myself to chill, just being self-deprecating (if a little schitzoid) -I have to watch my tendency to slip into maniacal rants
No you didn't come across as antsy or worked up, just a civilised debate on a slightly different viewpoints.
One solution to that "Who is able to vote"-problem could be a two-phase-voting-system.
E.g.:
First phase: All categories will be voted for each continent or each country. Every Member who has visited zoos in that continent/country can give his vote.
Second phase: The national/continental Winners (Place 1 to 3) will go in a worldwide voting, but voters must have visited at least zoos in 3 continents and more than 30(?) zoological institutions in total.
I know, it could be still unfair and far away from being perfect, but I think, it would be cleary have more value then before.
Opinions?
E.g.:
First phase: All categories will be voted for each continent or each country. Every Member who has visited zoos in that continent/country can give his vote.
Second phase: The national/continental Winners (Place 1 to 3) will go in a worldwide voting, but voters must have visited at least zoos in 3 continents and more than 30(?) zoological institutions in total.
I know, it could be still unfair and far away from being perfect, but I think, it would be cleary have more value then before.
Opinions?
Wouldn't Zoolex be a useful tool?
I can see several problems with this:
Firstly who's to priove how many zoo's you've visited. There is no proof of visiting at leats 30 institutions and no way you can say they are in more than one continent.
Seconldy I think this would deafeat one of the real purpose of zoos. Zoos are an alternative to people who cannot afford to venture abroad (such as myself and many others) to see animals in the wild. By only allowing poeple to vote who've visited 3 continents limits the votes to the people who can afford to do so, and not necessarily the best opinions.
I am in favour of the producing a pitch complete with pictures and a good reason for the nomination.
I agree. People can nominate an exhibit, but have to supply say five pictures of the exhibit giving a view from all angles and a description of the exhibit etc.
Also, thats a painful limitation right there. Three continents. You'd limit it to just a handful of eligable people. Say you've got five eligable voters, and five nominees in the category. You could end up with a five way tie. Kinda pointless, methinks.
Also, thats a painful limitation right there. Three continents. You'd limit it to just a handful of eligable people. Say you've got five eligable voters, and five nominees in the category. You could end up with a five way tie. Kinda pointless, methinks.
HH-wildlifepark
Member
i do think and kind of agree, on an effort level but small zoos can not compete against the big boys they have endless money pots where as us smaller parks don't our animals welfare comes much before a lavish exhibit!
if you think it can be judged fairly then im all for it!!! our lemurs might not have a massive enclousures but i bet they get much more interaction than the big boys!