Add disclaimer to all active policies

[mackaymackay]

In the lead up to the next election in May, I think it might be useful to add a warning to all active policies to make the limits of TVFY clearer to users (sort of like how we have the warning of inaccuracy on all draft policies). Something like this:

Warning: These policies provide information about how your representatives have voted in the past on relevant divisions, which are listed below. Policies do not predict how representatives will vote in the future. If it looks like a policy is missing important divisions, or like a division has been attached to a policy erroneously, please contact us.

[benrfairless]

I agree. I have seen a decent increase in the use of TVFY on social media, especially in areas we might not ordinarily look (TikTok for example).

Making it clear that "past results can't predict future performance" would be awesome.

[mlandauer]

@mackaymackay I think this is a really good idea and it makes sense to make a straightforward change like this to fend-off potential criticism over the course of the election.

With the specific wording I think it's useful to approach from the user point of view rather than focusing on it from TVFY's point of view. From a user's point of view the whole reason the historical record is useful is because past behaviour is in most cases an excellent predictor of future behaviour but it's not a crystal ball. If I want to predict tomorrow's weather the best predictor is actually to say it's going to be the same weather as today. That will be true more times than not. However, it's not always accurate. That's not to say it isn't useful. So, I think the wording should somehow include that idea in there.

So, trying to answer the question, "what would be useful to a person looking at this during the election?" how about something like this (a first, rough too long draft):

"The Federal Election is coming up soon! Looking at how a person voted in the past is a great way to see how they are likely to vote in the future and can help you decide who you should vote for. However, be careful remember this isn't a magic predictor of the future."

I don't like the words I just wrote above but maybe they can help move in the right direction.

As for putting a disclaimer about fixing errors maybe that should go somewhere else or not be included at all if it's said elsewhere prominently enough? It would be a shame to dilute the central message by including it if we don't need to. It always amazes me how little people actually read of what is on a page in front of them.

Again, I think this a good thing to do. Let's do it.

[mlandauer]

@JoannaHill FYI here's what the warning for draft policies looks like currently (for https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies/286):

My feeling is see where we land with the wording first and see if we can get away with just repurposing the current warning banner. It's a pain doing designy stuff with TVFY and it would be best avoided if we can though having said of course it's possible to do if there's a really good reason to.

[mackaymackay]

Hi @mlandauer, I agree with your points. However, I think we shouldn't specify a particular time point (e.g., "the federal election is coming up soon") as it'll mean we'll have to edit it and/or take it down once the election is over. I think it's probably better to draft something we can keep up indefinitely.

How about something like this:

Are you considering who to vote for in the next federal election? Seeing how your current representative voted in the past can be a great way to see how they might vote in the future. However, it isn't a magic predictor, as voting positions can and do change over time.

[katska]

All these elements work. I like the idea of leading with the element of not being able to predict the future. We can't solve that, but we can show what they did in the past. Showing the problem then solution reads as a more stable sentence supportive of the intent here.

Without the magic of a crystal ball, there’s no way to predict what representatives will do in future, no matter what they promise you now. But exploring how they voted before can help you decide who to support in an election.
Help by telling us if something is missing or wrong.

Tone is not apologetic and the call to action is stronger. I don't know what to put at the top though, almost want to invoke something like "Look here!"

Or switching around who's doing the supporting and voting. Also the jury out for me on directing to look (active pursuit/search) vs see (which can feel passive but also evokes knowing, recognising, understanding). And out of that came exploring, because I think this is meant to be invite a process of active curiosity and investigation to support thoughtful informed decision making.

Thanks for the reminder @JoannaHill of what the Warning for potentially wildly inaccurate drafts. This is very different and should aim to land very differently. Caution/Be careful / Remember / heads up / Important Note: - something plain

Remember! Without the magic of a crystal ball, there’s no way to predict what representatives will do in future, no matter what they promise you now. Take a good look at how they voted and which policies they supported before before casting your vote for them.
Help by telling us if something is missing or wrong.

Themes coming up are look, explore, investigate, report, vote ....

Trying out some alternative words and phrases there: - is there a word that conveys having more than a casual look at the policy position headlines?
Is that worth layering in here since we're inviting people to pay careful attention and report any problems/errors
Such as "Look at / review / scrutinise"
I made it representatives plural, because there's always more than one with House/Senate but it doesn't scan well for me.

[mackaymackay]

@katska Your way of wording it sounds good to me! I'd be happy for that to be what we go with.

[mackaymackay]

@katska Your way of wording it sounds good to me! I'd be happy for that to be what we go with.