Sort policies into categories on the Policies index page

[equivalentideas]

Might help people understand someone's position from different angels and also find policies more quickly.

Someone on reddit has sorted policies positions into categories https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3kwdbg/malcom_turnbull_becomes_prime_minister_of/cv1meo3

Update:

Through the discussion below we focused this issue on organising the list of policies into categories/themes to help people more easily/quickly find the policies they are looking for, and get a more comprehensive view of policies on a topic. Here's the problem this is aiming to address, from @MicaelaMicaela :

When editing, one of the very first steps is to ask yourself: "does this division relate to any existing policy or do I need to create a new one?" Currently, to answer this question, we have to browse every single policy (and it's easy to miss one!) or try using CTRL-F for particular terms (also ineffective as there are a lot of synonyms in the world!)

This step is vital to making an effective contribution. Anyone can edit a division, but their contribution only really becomes useful for everyone once it's connected to a policy. Even I get a little lost at this stage sometimes because I forget what policies we already have, despite having created most of them!

[henare]

See also how they did it in the UK http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10777/david_cameron/witney/votes

[mackaymackay]

This is a fantastic idea and will really increase the site's accessibility.

I think a good way to do it is to create a series of labels that people can attach to a policy - e.g. 'Education' - so that it is ordered under the heading 'Education' on the main Policies page. Is that possible?

I'm not sure it's necessary to order the policies on the politician's voting record pages (like they did on the UK site) as I quite like the way things are ordered now - but happy to be swayed on this!

Having done a practice run of categorising the policies we have, I'd suggest the following labels:

• Agriculture & Fisheries
• Broadcasting & Media
• Defence, Security & Emergency Response
• Education
• Environment & Natural Resources
• Equality
• First Nations
• Foreign Affairs & International Trade
• Government & the Constitution
• Health
• Immigration & Asylum
• Infrastructure & Industry
• Social Welfare

And is there any way we can add things like 'Apprenticeships – see Education' and then link to that policy category? This would just be on the main Policies page so that people scanning for particular words can be sent on to the right place. The signposts like this that I think would be handy are:

• Aboriginal Australians – see First Nations
• Apprenticeships – see Education
• Asylum Seeking – see Immigration & Asylum
• Climate Change – see Environment & Natural Resources
• Consumer Protection – see Infrastructure & Industry
• Freedom of Information – see Government & the Constitution
• Human Rights (for citizens) – see Government & the Constitution
• Mining – see Environment & Natural Resources
• Parental leave – see Social Welfare
• Pensions – see Social Welfare
• Terrorism – see Defence, Security & Emergency Response
• Unions – see Infrastructure and Industry

What do you guys think?

If it's handy, I can show you how I've organised the existing policies with these labels.

[henare]

I think a good way to do it is to create a series of labels that people can attach to a policy - e.g. 'Education' - so that it is ordered under the heading 'Education' on the main Policies page. Is that possible?

This sounds a lot like #454.

I'm not sure it's necessary to order the policies on the politician's voting record pages (like they did on the UK site) as I quite like the way things are ordered now - but happy to be swayed on this!

What about on their OA.org.au pages? It's not really ordered at all now (I think it might be by policy ID). Should this be the same as TVFY or would it make more sense to order them by category there?

e.g. http://www.openaustralia.org.au/mp/malcolm_turnbull/wentworth

And is there any way we can add things like 'Apprenticeships – see Education' and then link to that policy category? This would just be on the main Policies page so that people scanning for particular words can be sent on to the right place.

Would search be a better way of doing this?

It could be some filter as you type kind of thing that would also match on those other phrases you've suggested. So if you type "a-p-p-r-e-n" then it filters what's on the page and you see Education and click it.

[mackaymackay]

This sounds a lot like #454.

The only difference is that #454 seems to be more about tagging divisions whereas this would be about the policies themselves. Probably the best place for giving people the option to label/categorise a policy in this way is at the policy creation stage, which people can go into edit if they disagree with the categorisation.

What about on their OA.org.au pages? It's not really ordered at all now (I think it might be by policy ID). Should this be the same as TVFY or would it make more sense to order them by category there?

Maybe best to order it by category - that way we have the best of both worlds!

Would search be a better way of doing this?
It could be some filter as you type kind of thing that would also match on those other phrases you've suggested. So if you type "a-p-p-r-e-n" then it filters what's on the page and you see Education and click it.

I agree! Could definitely be done by search and that was there's less cluttering up the actual page.

[equivalentideas]

I think we need to have a really clear statement of the problem people are having that we're trying to solve on this issue, so that we ensure we're actually making things simpler and more intuitive for people using the site.

In particular what are actions are we helping people take? What are the problems they're having that are blocking them now?

I think that will help us understand where and how categories will be useful to people and where they'll get in the way.

[mackaymackay]

Hi Luke,

One problem I see is that right now there is no easy way to browse policies on TVFY.

Sorting the policies so that they appear under category headings will make browsing far easier and let people see any related policies they may have otherwise missed.

Another related problem is that there is no easy way to search for policies on areas of interest. For example, if I search 'Education', I get only get two policies: 'For increasing funding for university education' and 'For reducing planned economic immigration for economic and environmental reasons'. The latter isn't even about education, it just uses the word in the description. This search also misses several other policies which are about education, e.g. 'For charging postgraduate research students fees'.

If each policy was categorised with its broad area, all related policies should show up in a search like this.

[equivalentideas]

Another related problem is that there is no easy way to search for policies on areas of interest. For example, if I search 'Education', I get only get two policies: 'For increasing funding for university education' and 'For reducing planned economic immigration for economic and environmental reasons'. The latter isn't even about education, it just uses the word in the description. This search also misses several other policies which are about education, e.g. 'For charging postgraduate research students fees'.

Nice 🔭 . I think improving search is a good aim. As you’ve explained the results can be confusing and miss policies that you’d expect to be present. Having some kind of category/keyword/tag system would be one way to address this. We'd have to maintain the categories, but as the list of policies seems to be pretty stable, that’s probably not too big a price to pay for an improved user experience. The categories don't actually have to be exposed to users to achieve this though.

Currently, <10% of visits to the site include a search (this doesn't include people who are taken straight to their MPs page from the homepage search). The vast majority of these people are looking of their MP, by name or post code.

So users who are searching for policies or divisions on the site by topic are actually a tiny group of users, compared to the people who are looking up their MP.

We would like to see more people using the site to look up division and policies (particularly because we're aiming to grow the number of contributors), but I think we should look at ways to grow that group before optimising search for them. On the other hand, maybe if people are introduced to the research value in the site and get a really good search experience, that will lead them to get more involved. This might be a good thing to do, but we should make sure we understand we're prioritising a tiny (but probably important) group of users over most people. Is that the target audience we're trying to help with this this issue?

One problem I see is that right now there is no easy way to browse policies on TVFY.

Sorting the policies so that they appear under category headings will make browsing far easier and let people see any related policies they may have otherwise missed.

Do you mean on the /policies page or an MP voting record page? For an issue like this, that could result in a pretty major change to how people view policies on the site, I think we can be more specific about what the person is trying to achieve and what the problem is.

Lists of policies appear in two place in the site currently (+ on openaustralia.org MP pages): on the policies page and individual person pages, e.g. Malcolm Turnbull’s page. The vast vast majority of people who use the site view an MPs page, and only a tiny group use the Policies page (<3%).

I can imagine a specific problem that people might be having:

As someone interested in education, when trying to see how my MP voted on policies related to education, it’s difficult for me to see how they vote on policies related to education, because they’re split across the entire voting record list. Some are at the top of the page, some are much further down. I have to pay close attention and slowly read the whole list to spot the policies that matter to me.

For this person it could be really helpful to have all the policies they're interested in grouped together.

(I find it really helpful to describe problems that people might be having from their perspective, in this kind of 'job storyish format'.)

On the other hand, as someone who isn't interested in any particular policy area, I might want a broader overview of the things my MP is for and against. Organising it by voting position (as we currently do) is probably better for these people.

I think we need this kind of close description of the problem this addresses (which I should have done when I made this issue sorry :P). This issue is currently an idea for a solution looking for a concrete problem. It something that sounds good for us, particularly because we're all editing divisions and using the site as researchers, but does it really help most citizens with something? or are we trying to help the type of people who contribute to the site instead? I hope this is helpful and not just an epic rant!

[mackaymackay]

Hi Luke - slight misunderstanding! Throughout this discussion I've just been referring to the Policies page (see my initial comment). I think the rep's TVFY voting record page is fine as it is (though perhaps the OAF version of it could be ordered a bit better - see my discussion with Henare above).

Maybe, since I'm only talking about creating categories for the Policies page, I should create a new issue for this suggestion?

Anyway, here is my response + re-phrasing of the problem

It seems the biggest concern you have is that this change would only benefit a small proportion of the audience:

We would like to see more people using the site to look up division and policies (particularly because we're aiming to grow the number of contributors), but I think we should look at ways to grow that group before optimising search for them. On the other hand, maybe if people are introduced to the research value in the site and get a really good search experience, that will lead them to get more involved. This might be a good thing to do, but we should make sure we understand we're prioritising a tiny (but probably important) group of users over most people. Is that the target audience we're trying to help with this this issue?

[...]

It something that sounds good for us, particularly because we're all editing divisions and using the site as researchers, but does it really help most citizens with something? or are we trying to help the type of people who contribute to the site instead?

[...]

The vast vast majority of people who use the site view an MPs page, and only a tiny group use the Policies page (<3%).

My response is that the only good that comes out of TVFY for the majority is what is contributed by the minority. Targetting improvements towards contributors is a win, win! The contributors will find it easier to contribute, which means there's more there for citizens to access.

I do not think we will be able to grow the number of contributors without making improvements like this - trying to do so is like putting the cart before the horse.

Also, note that when editing, there's no need to go onto the MPs page at all. For contributors, only the Policies page and the Divisions pages are important.

All that said:

What's the problem?

We need more contributors on TVFY but contributing is really time-consuming!

How can we make the process easier for contributors?

We can use headings on the Policies page and so sort the policies into easy-to-browse-and-search groups.

(I've suggested some headings above - happy to debate these.)

Why would policy headings be so darn helpful?

When editing, one of the very first steps is to ask yourself: "does this division relate to any existing policy or do I need to create a new one?" Currently, to answer this question, we have to browse every single policy (and it's easy to miss one!) or try using CTRL-F for particular terms (also ineffective as there are a lot of synonyms in the world!)

This step is vital to making an effective contribution. Anyone can edit a division, but their contribution only really becomes useful for everyone once it's connected to a policy. Even I get a little lost at this stage sometimes because I forget what policies we already have, despite having created most of them!

[equivalentideas]

Hi Luke - slight misunderstanding! Throughout this discussion I've just been referring to the Policies page (see my initial comment)

I've changed the title of this issue to be specifically about the Policies index page, as we've broken the MP page off into #1074 .

It can get a bit confusing in these issues where the focus changes, but the title stays the same. I'm pretty up for iterating issue titles to make the focus more clear. As I said above, @MicaelaMicaela this was a poorly defined issue in the first place (my fault), which is where the misunderstandings come from :)

When editing, one of the very first steps is to ask yourself: "does this division relate to any existing policy or do I need to create a new one?" Currently, to answer this question, we have to browse every single policy (and it's easy to miss one!) or try using CTRL-F for particular terms (also ineffective as there are a lot of synonyms in the world!)

This step is vital to making an effective contribution. Anyone can edit a division, but their contribution only really becomes useful for everyone once it's connected to a policy. Even I get a little lost at this stage sometimes because I forget what policies we already have, despite having created most of them!

This is a great, practical description of the problem for users. I can really feel the frustration and see how organising the policies would help you find the policies relevant to a division. I've copied this up to the first issue comment so it's the focus.

My response is that the only good that comes out of TVFY for the majority is what is contributed by the minority.

I think this makes sense, particularly given that you're the biggest contributor. If this is going to make it quicker for you to connect policies to divisions, and also have an easier time finding the most relevant policy—then it’s going to be a big win for all users as they'll get a more comprehensive, high quality information 👍 @MicaelaMicaela is this a good description of the problem/solution in a paragraph?

When I’m looking for policies that might relate to a division, show me the policies grouped by topic so that I don't need to scan policies that aren't relevant, so I can completely my contribution more quickly/easily and am more likely to connect all relevant policies to a division.

Now that we've got a clear idea of the problem we want to solve and who we're solving it for, we should sketch out how this could be implemented and also find some example of how other people are solving this problem in their projects.

[brtrx]

Hi all,
I've mocked up some screens for how to implement this, taking into consideration:

• People might not immediately understand a policy area by its title, or they may be scanning for a related keyword (Aboriginal for First Nations, as @MicaelaMicaela pointed out). So I've added descriptions to the policy areas.
• We agree we need to encourage contributions, and given that relating divisions to policies is one of the simplest, and most useful contributions, I've add a call to action to that effect
• A simple listing of All Policies may still be useful to some, so I've mocked up that page - but TBH, why use this page except to find something specific, in which case why not just search?
• A live text filter might be relevant on Policy Area pages, but it depends on how many policies there are per area ( @MicaelaMicaela? )
• There needs to be a link back from each indiv. policy page to it's policy area
• A policy may indeed belong to more than one area (any reason to exclude this possibility - allowing it improves findability of policies)

Policies index page

Policy Area page

Individual Policy page

Showing policy area information as links

All Policies page

Accessed from Policies index page

[equivalentideas]

Thanks for contributing to this @brtrx ⭐ it's really helpful to get an idea of how this could look on the page. It's particularly helpful that you've considered how this change would impact a range of pages. When we come round to look at this change again we'll definitely draw on these ideas.

There’s also a lot in here in addition to the focus of this issue. We much prefer for issues to be discussion of very specific changes or ideas. That makes them much easier to manage and track.

I definitely think the on page 'search' filtering will help people. We have an issue to add that here: #1000

The “recent” list is an interesting idea too. Thats quite separate from this issue, so I think you should open a new issue for that that discusses the user need for that.

[mackaymackay]

Fantastic @brtrx ! Even better than what I'd had in mind! 👍 👍 👍

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because there has been no activity on it for about six months. If you want to keep it open please make a comment and explain why this issue is still relevant. Otherwise it will be automatically closed in a week. Thank you!

[mlandauer]

This is right up there I think as one of the most important features to add to the site now. There are a lot of policies on the site. The policies are far and above the biggest thing that people look at but they are so hard to navigate because there are so many. I think a tagging system that allows a policy to be in more than one category is important to handle the fuzzy ambiguity of the real world

[mackaymackay]

@mlandauer I think a tagging system would be a great way to do it

[mackaymackay]

As this seems to be the main github issue for improvements to the policy page, I'll add this here:

We had an email this week suggesting that policies should also be sorted by date on the policy page. Currently, we only have an option to sort by name or subscriber numbers.

The user wants to be able to more easily find recent legislation when they don't know its actual name, i.e. they go to the relevant policy and look through the divisions from there, but find it a longer process due to not being able to sort policy names by date. In the case that prompted the email, they were looking for legislation related to climate change, so I imagine it took them a while to look through each climate change related policy. If the policies were sorted by date, they could go directly to the climate change policies that were most recently updated and so order their search more effectively.

[mlandauer]

@mackaymackay i've split your comment above into a separate issue #1290

[MutazAshhab]

I have an idea as to how this would be implemented.

When a policy is created the creator has the ability to add a tag. For example Education tag

Or when a policy is edited the editor has the ability to add a tag. Again, for example First Nations tag

The tag does not have to appear on the UI.

The tag is stored and is used by the program to group (categorize) policies together.

I cannot think of a way of categorizing the policies without tags. As @mackaymackay pointed out a policy with the title of For charging postgraduate research students fees does not have the word Education and hence cannot be searched/categorized properly.

Hence tagging upon creation/editing of the policy sounds like a more reasonable approach

@mlandauer thoughts?

[mlandauer]

@Taz17 Yup that's pretty similar to what I was thinking. When you say "the tag does not have to appear on the UI", do you mean when you add a tag it doesn't need to show the pre-existing tags or is do you mean that when you look at the full policies list (e.g. https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies) the tags don't need to displayed there?

I do think that on pages where we are listing a lot of different policies (for example https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies and https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) we should use the tags to group policies together and probably name them as all being about "environment" for example.

[MutazAshhab]

@mlandauer Yes tags for each individual policy should not be displayed on https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies

That being said, the tag should be displayed when a user chooses to edit the policy.

I do think that on pages where we are listing a lot of different policies (for example https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies and https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz) we should use the tags to group policies together and probably name them as all being about "environment" for example.

I suggest that when on https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies only the category name should be visible.

Eg:

Education

1. Policy One
2. Policy Two
3. Policy Three
4. Policy Four

^ Notice no tags shown, just the category.

And on https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/eric_abetz

It should be like

How do they vote?

Voted consistently for

1. Policy One [Education]
2. Policy Two [Education]
3. Policy Three [Education]
4. Policy Four [First Nation]
5. Policy Five [First Nation]
6. Policy Six [Infrastructure]
7. Policy Seven [Infrastructure]

Voted consistently against

1. Policy One [I ran out of ideas]
2. Policy Two [I ran out of ideas]
3. Policy Three [I ran out of ideas]

Notice:

1. [tag name] is what we will use to categorize.
2. policies with the same [tag name] should be listed together to help with readability

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because there has been no activity on it for about six months. If you want to keep it open please make a comment and explain why this issue is still relevant. Otherwise it will be automatically closed in a week. Thank you!

[katska]

Thanks @mackaymackay for pointing me to this. I independently had a go at creating broad policy areas, tags and search terms that could be used for every policy we currently have, in service of making the most of our Google ad grant. It could also be useful here, and I will cross reference with the excellent work already done here too.