# Moderator Elections: bug reporting for new questionnaire UI

As we announced today, there is a new user interface for candidate questionnaires in moderator elections. Chemistry will be the first Stack Exchange community to use the new UI when the nomination phase of your election begins later today.

If you encounter any bugs with the new questionnaire UI, please list them below as answers. The Public Platform development team will monitor this post until Apr 23, 2021 and respond to bug reports.

As of the time of writing, there is one nomination. The questionnaire response is garbled when viewed on my mobile browser (on a laptop it works just fine).

This behaviour occurs with both of these browsers:

• Safari

on two separate devices:

• iOS 14.4.1 on an iPhone SE (second-generation, 2020)
• iOS 14.4.2 on a 12.9-inch iPad Pro (first-generation, 2015)

Below is a screenshot on the iPhone.

• Yep. I'm getting the same experience. I mentioned it internally and was going to write an answer but you saved me the time. 😀 I'd only tested in mobile Safari, so you're being more thorough than I.
– Catija StaffMod
Apr 6 at 4:26
• For the record, there are no issues with Chromium-based mobile browsers on Android 11: screenshot from Vivaldi.
– andselisk Mod
Apr 6 at 7:58
• I also have the same issue in the latest version of firefox on macOS Mojave. Apr 6 at 12:22
• @Catija - this same bug also appears on Safari 14 on my Big Sur laptop - imgur.com/a/wFo7aEm Apr 6 at 12:52
• @Catija Android+Samsung also. Apr 6 at 17:28
• Reproduced with Firefox as well. We're looking into it. Thanks for the report!
Apr 7 at 21:19
• Windows8.1Pro+Firefox also. Workaround which worked for me: i.stack.imgur.com/w80fP.png. (I.e click on history -> questionnaire history). This gives: i.stack.imgur.com/aeWIc.png. Apr 9 at 15:12
• Fixed now! Apologies for the inconvenience.
Apr 9 at 21:04

I don't really like the placeholder answers

which you can see if you click 'Show Questions':

Since the button says 'Show Questions', why not just show only the questions as a single numbered list?

• This is a concession to an editor limitation at the moment. The markup for the whole list of questions is saved once and used for both this display and pre-populating the editor to gather responses. What we ideally want to happen is just have a list of questions, but the editor doesn't preserve empty lines, so we ended up adding a placeholder. We can likely work around this as well in a couple ways, but I'm hoping we can address the underlying editor issue rather than set up workarounds.
Apr 7 at 21:12
• I've implemented a workaround that removes these placeholder answers. Thanks for reporting, Glorfindel! 🙌
– Kyle Pollard StaffMod
May 4 at 19:29

The character limit appears to be counting something else than the characters I see. Perhaps it's auto-formatting hyperlinks to put me right over the edge (adding https: in front of // for the 2 hyperlinks would've cost me another 12 characters while I only had 9 spare (1191 characters total by my count)).

Would it at least be possible to tell us the current character count as-counted by the system when we receive the notification about our candidate statement being too long (max. 1200 characters)?

Yes, I was in markdown mode when counting characters.

• A little late for this election, but we added a character counter to both the candidate statement and the questionnaire response editors.
May 21 at 14:49
– Mast
May 21 at 16:07

A user raised a flag regarding improper browser rendering. I wanted to mark it as helpful and provide a link to this Meta post, but neither Helpful… nor Decline… links are working on the election page. They do change color as visited when I click on them, but nothing happens afterwards.

When the flags queue is opened from the admin dashboard, everything works fine.

System: Windows 10 20H2 64-bit
Browser: Chromium 89.0.4389.90 (Official Build, 64-bit, all extensions disabled)

• Sorry about that. We have a set of changes queued up for release soon that will address this... by virtue of hiding flags on nominations from moderators. We originally planned to do that in the first place, but that was missed in the initial release of nomination flags. The idea there is that we expect the primary end result of nomination flags to be CMs withdrawing nominations, so they would mostly be noise to the rest of y'all. But, we'll be monitoring what actually ends up flagged, and can revisit who sees what if it turns out that most flags are related to issues mods can assist with.
Apr 7 at 21:18

Right now there are 4 nominations. The "history" links at the bottom of every nomination are hyperlinked to the most recent nomination. The "intro history" is shown below, but the "questionnaire history" link has the same problem.

• That's... weird. No idea how that's happening, so this is gonna be a fun one to investigate.
Apr 15 at 23:38
• This is now fixed! There were some duplicated IDs on the page which meant that every popover would use the first post's data. Should be good to go now, thanks orthocresol!
– Kyle Pollard StaffMod
May 7 at 21:32

The software doesn't properly handle large pastes.
Copy and paste a section of text around 10k characters and you should be able to reproduce. The bounds of the bug are somewhere between 9.6k and 1.9k.

• The Markdown <-> WYSIWYG toggle mangles the Markdown. (escaping headers and deleting newlines).
• Copying from a mangled document gives very different output back.
• The down arrow doesn't work properly going from the start of a line to some random place on the next line. (Possibly because new lines have been mangled)
• Causes wrapping to not break on words boundaries.
• Causes - to wrap to the next line. (So spaces are displayed in the editor, but don't exist or something?)
• I think (but really do not want to test) the mangled text will look mangled when posted.

Another one, this time quite petty. Is it possible to add a way for a moderator to see deleted comments on the nominations, like we can on other posts?

Right now the only way I can view deleted comments is by going to the commenter's profile and using the moderator tools there. On the nomination itself, there's no indication that there are any deleted comments, so they're impossible to find unless you happen to know where to look.

• @AdamLear I think this is a problem not just for moderators. Regular users can't see comments on the nominations once the election starts, which means they're deprived of perhaps crucial information about dangerous or exemplary candidates. Why deprive them of that information? Apr 25 at 4:57
• @user1271772 Comments are still shown on the Nominations tab, but we remove them on the election tab largely to reduce noise since a lot of the comments tend to be things like "good luck!" and "you got my vote!".
Apr 26 at 21:19
• Would it be a good idea to make the election deadline (close time) more specific in the Election tab?

We see both the date and time for when the nomination began, and for when the election began (equivalently, nomination ended). Asymmetrically, for the election deadline it stands plainly as "tomorrow". A specific time would be an improvement (albeit perhaps small) in my humble opinion. Despite the fact that, most probably, the deadline is implicitly at 20:00.

EDIT: The same thing applies near the end of the election. A specific date is better than "ends in 1 hour". Using minutes instead of hours during the final hour might also be considered, perhaps even a combination.

A moderator reported that they were seeing three flags in the flag menu icon in the top bar on their site but there were no corresponding flags that they could find anywhere.

As the election manager, I was notified that the election had three flags on the nominees, and was able to handle the three "ghost" flags. It seems that in fixing andselisk's issue, we created a slightly smaller one. Is it possible to make it so that the nomination flags on candidate posts only increment the top bar count for people who can handle those flags (essentially, CMs)?

Links to tags display correctly in the WYSIWYG preview. However show up as text ([meta-tag:discussion]) not as a tag when posted.

• I was not able to reproduce this. Tags showing up for me in rendered markdown as they should.
– Yaakov Ellis StaffMod
May 31 at 12:59
• @YaakovEllis You can see the issue in my nomination post. "As a user in the top 10 for discussion I have;" May 31 at 13:05
• Yeah, I see it now, thanks
– Yaakov Ellis StaffMod
Jun 1 at 10:36
• This is now fixed. @Peilonrayz your nomination post now looks as it should. Note: the fix is only for future edits. It will not retroactively fix any items that were already saved (the html for magic tag links is calculated from the markdown when the post is saved).
– Yaakov Ellis StaffMod
Jun 3 at 10:34
• @YaakovEllis Nice! Thank you. Jun 3 at 11:10

In the guidelines section, the hyperlink associated with Meta (highlighted in red) is linked to https://chemistry.stackexchange.meta.com/tags/election (which doesn't exist) instead of https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/election.

Could this be fixed?

• Diamond moderators can edit this, so I have changed it. This erroneous link was introduced in 2019 and was probably just a typo.
– orthocresol Mod
Apr 20 at 8:38

In the election page the names of the candidates are bolded and are in a size larger than the font used in their opinion and promises.

But only the name of the user Buck Thorn is smaller in size than the other candidates' names.

Can this be fixed?

• I wonder if it's a bug so much as that the other candidates kept the header markup and Buck Thorn maybe changed it to use a bold markup. Technically, I can fix it, but I feel kinda weird editing people's nominations. I'd look at the history of the post to confirm but... uh... I can't. :(
– Catija StaffMod
Apr 20 at 13:35
• Thank you, I've got it.
– Ak.
Apr 20 at 13:53
• @Catija Odd... On Samsung+Android the names have always been (and still are) displayed identically to me. There is indeed a likely difference between formatting used by the candidates in the Nomination tab. I thought Ak. was instead referring to the Election tab (where I see no difference). Am I misunderstanding something? What I see: i.stack.imgur.com/xGV47.jpg. Apr 20 at 14:56
• @LinearChristmas No, I didn't mean that. Kindly look in the primary tab
– Ak.
Apr 20 at 15:29
• Ah! Thank you for clarifying. You might wish to change the link in your answer to refer to the Primary tab (currently it leads to the Election tab). By the way, where is the screenshot of the box with five names from? Do you actually see it in that format, or was it intended as a summarising schematic you created yourself? Apr 20 at 15:35
• @LinearChristmas Yeah I've cropped them to just show the difference in font size.
– Ak.
Apr 20 at 15:38
• @LinearChristmas I can open an edit window for each of the nominations and can confirm that the username is included in the nomination post and that for the bulk, that markdown is # Username but for Buck Thorn it's **Buck Thorn** instead. i.stack.imgur.com/eD4Z1.png I suppose that we could consider keeping the username outside the candidate statement so that it's not editable. Not sure.
– Catija StaffMod
Apr 20 at 15:41
• @LinearChristmas I'm able to see the difference even in Elections tabin my pc, but it isn't showing in the mobile browser
– Ak.
Apr 20 at 15:47
• I see it in the mobile browser (iOS, Safari) - the expandable user ID with the avatars next to them are all the same (Election tab only) but when they're open Buck Thorn's username is different in all three views - On the election tab, were you looking at the expanded or minimized names @LinearChristmas ?
– Catija StaffMod
Apr 22 at 2:47
• @Catija I was looking at minimized, i.e. not expanded names (which were identical in Election tab). When expanded (opened), Buck Thorn's name is different. This is (was) in good agreement with your explanation from the previous comment. Perhaps I should have explicitly confirmed I was happy with your explanation/comment to be more clear; so far I had only settled for the anonymous (+1). :) Apr 22 at 8:39

This link takes me to edit my intro. I am not able to edit the questionnaire.

(Note, this is a different site. I was told to post the bug here.)

• You should be able to answer the questionnaire now. Sorry for the inconvenience.
– Anita Taylor Staff
Apr 26 at 14:56

EDIT: The issue is present on mobile phone with Android/Samsung, both in mobile and desktop views. Issue is absent on Win10/Firefox88.0, 64bit.

2nd edit: Rechecked that this is indeed still the case. Election page also looks very different now, after the election is over. On Android/Samsung (mobile and desktop views), I can only see my choices in the election. Absent on Win8.1Pro/Firefox88.0, 64bit.

Recommendation for the Election tab:

• perhaps add some additional information on the weights given to various voting scenarios available to voters.

More specifically, a voter can currently order the candidates according to preference but may also omit users from selection. In fact, a voter is encouraged to not select users who they think eould make poor moderators.

So one is naturally led to compare various scenarios, e.g.,

1. select exactly 1 nominee, leave others unselected;

2. order exactly 2 nominees, leave others unselected;

3. more generally, order exactly $$k$$ nominees, leave $$n - k$$ unselected;

4. order all nominees;

5. select no nominees.

I could not currently find information on how these scenarious contrast with one another or how they affect the outcome. Here is the "Learn more" window opened:

For instance, if there were, say, candidates A, B, C, D, E, is there a difference between ranking just A and B (in that order), or ranking all candidates A, B, C, D, E (in that order)?

• If this information (formula, weights) is available somewhere, adding a link on the "Learn more" window would perfectly suffice. Perhaps a few played out scenarios in a linked Meta post would be a good idea.
• There is already an explanation in the Elections Phase info box: "We will calculate the winners using OpaVote with the Meek STV method, which automatically weights users' votes in the way that does the most good for the candidates they have selected, in order of preference." The URLs link to additional info
– Anita Taylor Staff
Apr 27 at 21:26
• @AnitaTaylor As stated in the answer, it is indeed present on some platforms, but missing in others... Please see the blockquoted text. Apr 27 at 21:28
• @AnitaTaylor I've added some more information. The point is that on Android/Samsung there is no such information (see screenshots). On Win8.1Pro/Firefox88 and Win10/Firefox88 everything is fine indeed. If this is status-bydesign, that's perfectly OK. Apr 27 at 21:40
• Apologies -- I failed to notice that this was on mobile. Yes, it is by design to not show all of the page copy on smaller windows
– Anita Taylor Staff
Apr 27 at 21:47
• @AnitaTaylor No problem! Perhaps just adding a hyperlink like See [here](link) how votes are tallied; this would conserve space and give the necessary information. Though you probably have a better idea how needed this change would be; maybe most voters vote on desktop/laptop so it isn't a big issue; this I do not know. Apr 27 at 21:51

1. Is it intended behaviour to have a shorter version of the questionnaire (really just introduction) for canditates in the Election tab?

1. Should the Primary phase tab even be clickable/viewable (with full questionnaire there) if the primary phase was skipped? It seems to just add noise in this case.

Not bug-related: Is this post still being actively monitored for bugs/suggestions despite the official deadline of April 14 behind us? If so, changing the date to a few days after the election would make more sense.

• The "Primary" tab in this case is mostly a historical artefact. But we should definitely be showing the questionnaires in the mobile election phase view.
Apr 19 at 21:45
• Yes. Works great now, thank you. Apr 22 at 8:41

This might not be a bug; but if it is, it's a teeny-tiny one. Have a look at the summary page of elections on Chem.SE. Here is how it looks on Win8.1/Firefox:

Notice that everybody has a diamond next to their name except:

• former moderators, ManisEarth and jonsca – this makes sense;
• one of the newest moderators, Buck Thorn – this does not make sense.

Why is the diamond not displayed for Buck Thorn? When one clicks on their user profile, we can see that they have already become moderator (and the diamond is present on their user profile), so that is not the issue.

Edit: issue is present on Win8.1Pro/Firefox88.0, 64 bit; not present on Android/Samsung:

• I think it was just a timing issue -- the diamond is displaying on the summary page now.
– Anita Taylor Staff
Apr 27 at 21:19
• @AnitaTaylor Thank you for the respose. I thought so too, initially. I have just rechecked to be sure: there is still no diamond for Buck Thorn at the time of writing this comment. (Win8.1Pro, Firefox 88.0, 64-bit) Apr 27 at 21:22
• Ok -- we'll take a look
– Anita Taylor Staff
Apr 27 at 21:30
• Everything seems to now be in order at the time of writing this comment. (On Win8.1Pro, Firefox 88.0, 64 bit) Apr 28 at 12:35
• This is by design - the profiles on the summary page are being displayed using the user flair system. These are images that get cached for some period of time, so they won't be accurate immediately after the election while the image is still cached. I don't know the exact cache length off the top of my head, but I believe it's less than a day.
– Kyle Pollard StaffMod
Apr 28 at 21:57
• Why the difference between platforms? Apr 28 at 22:00
• @LinearChristmas I believe this is because the caching is being done by each device. Your desktop browser may have loaded the flair image before and cached it, but your mobile device hadn't loaded the image before so it got a fresh copy with the mod diamond.
– Kyle Pollard StaffMod
Apr 30 at 22:09
• @KylePollard Okay, I can buy that :). Thank you for replying. May 12 at 8:34