Problems with your username or password? Please contact Ellen Jones: e-jones@uiowa.edu
Institutional requirements for voting:
Institutions who are members of both user groups only vote once. Consortia may have a single membership for the consortia, just single memberships for members, or both.
Each institution receives 100 votes to use in each round:
An institution can place all 100 votes on one enhancement should it decide to do so. Or it could break down votes in chunks. 30,30,30,10 on four different enhancements is a common way of parsing out the 100 votes.
Placing a “token” vote, such as placing 1 vote for an enhancement which is interesting but not important, is not recommended. Enhancements are ranked based on the total number of votes received. There isn’t a formal review of which enhancements received “interest” votes, so the “token” vote ends up not counting. Better to identify a few top candidates which would truly benefit the institution and focus on those, rather than spread small numbers too thinly.
First Round of Voting Overview
After the first round of voting the twenty enhancements with the most votes are sent to Ex Libris for “pointing”. Ex Libris assigns development points to each of the 20 enhancements from round one. As noted above, there are 200 development points allocated per year.
Second Round of Voting Overview
Consider the second round of voting a new vote. In the second round of voting, institutions review the twenty remaining enhancements and the number of points assigned to each and then allocate the 100 votes as they see fit. There is no obligation to vote for the enhancement receiving the most votes in the first round if it does not help the institution. Consider what top candidates within this subset of enhancements would be the most beneficial and vote accordingly.