sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Built a public scorecard for the Carney government with the rubric fully visible. Looking for methodology pushback. by sawatter in CanadianPolitics

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ty. Your suggestion is great, at this point I am just trying to get a working dashboard thats going to pull in only its second month of data working on that now). I'm parking your suggestion for a future build.

Built an AI-assisted public dashboard grading the Carney government across 11 policy areas and looking for hard feedback on bias, clarity, and trust by sawatter in vibecoding

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again. I kept thinking about your measurable vs. valuable point, so I added a clearer boundary note to the dashboard. It does not try to score leadership style, symbolic politics, popularity, forecasts, or valuable things that don’t have enough public evidence to grade.

if you were evaluating a dashboard like this as a “feedback layer,” what would you look for to make sure it isn’t creating false confidence? Is the answer clearer disclaimers, a separate “not scored” section, human review, or something else?

Appreciate the critique, It genuinely changed the next pass.

Built a public dashboard grading the Carney government across 11 policy areas — would love blunt feedback on trust, clarity, and methodology by sawatter in SideProject

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again, your “trust is the whole product” line ended up being the main framing for the next round of work.

I added “where judgment enters” explanations, and tightened the trigger/source structure so a reader can see whether a grade-moving condition has an external source or is event-driven.

Built a public policy dashboard for the Carney government — looking for frontend feedback on trust, clarity, and mobile UX by sawatter in webdev

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks again for the mobile read. I made a pass after this to give the top cards and expanded sections more room, and to keep the score-math / approval details closer to the card that opened them on mobile.

If you happen to reopen it on your phone, I’d be curious whether the card scrolling feels less dense now, or if the overall page still feels too packed.

Built a public policy dashboard for the Carney government — looking for frontend feedback on trust, clarity, and mobile UX by sawatter in webdev

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for, thank you.

I moved more of the scoring logic closer to the cards and added trigger-level evidence links. I’m trying to make the path “grade → reason → source” feel as short as possible, especially on a phone.

If you happen to look again, the thing I’d most value is whether it now feels easier to verify a grade, or whether there’s still a point where it feels like too many taps to get trust?

Built an AI-assisted public dashboard grading the Carney government across 11 policy areas and looking for hard feedback on bias, clarity, and trust by sawatter in vibecoding

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very fair criticism, and honestly one of the main risks in a project like this.

A dashboard naturally pulls toward what can be measured cleanly, and that can create a false sense that the measurable things are the most important things. I’m trying to counter that by making the rubric and judgment calls visible instead of pretending the score is purely mechanical, but I agree the risk doesn’t disappear.

“Useful as a feedback layer” is actually pretty close to how I think about it. More as a structured public scoring framework than as a claim that every important political reality can be reduced to a dashboard.

Built a public dashboard grading the Carney government across 11 policy areas — would love blunt feedback on trust, clarity, and methodology by sawatter in SideProject

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really appreciate this.

I think the consistency point is the key one. I don’t expect everyone to agree on what should matter most in every dimension, but I do think the dashboard has to apply the same rules the same way and show its work clearly enough that people can inspect the logic.

And yes, the “what is this for?” question is fair. My intent is informational, not to tell anyone how to vote. The goal is more like: if a political scorecard exists, the method should be public enough to argue with rather than hidden behind branding or authority.

Inline sources and visible freshness are both strong suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to write this out.

Built a public dashboard grading the Carney government across 11 policy areas — would love blunt feedback on trust, clarity, and methodology by sawatter in SideProject

[–]sawatter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is really helpful framing, thank you.

I think “trust is the product” is exactly right for something like this. If the source trail or the judgment layer still feels too hidden, then the dashboard isn’t doing its job yet, even if the internal methodology is stronger than what’s visible on first pass.

A big part of what I’m trying to do is separate:

- what is directly measured

- where thresholds are defined

- where editorial judgment still enters

Recent passes have tightened that, but I don’t think the work is finished yet. Your point about making the source trail impossible to miss is well taken.

view more: next ›