Semantic Precision
One of the most important design decisions when creating a MetaPoll is how you name the options.
We're going to cover something called "Semantic Precision". Semantic Precision might sound like a technical concept, but it has far reaching consequences. If you want to author great MetaPolls, it's valuable to be aware of, let's dive in.
The Two Primary Semantic Precision Styles
When writing options in MetaPoll they can be of high or low semantic precision. For simplicity, these can be boiled down to two primary styles which we will call Concrete and Abstract, each with distinct pros and cons.
1. Concrete Style (High Precision)
The concrete style uses exact, quantifiable measurements and specifications:
Monetary values: "$100 million"
Percentages: "14.2% allocation"
Technical specifications: "20 cores @ 5GHz"
Physical parameters: "24Β°C", "5.4 kg"
Geographic coordinates: "37.7749Β° N, 122.4194Β° W"
These options leave minimal room for interpretation. They create clear, verifiable conditions for execution and assessment. When a concrete option is chosen, there's little to no ambiguity about what it means.
Objective is clear and verifiable
Requires additional knowledge
Maximizes power to the expresser
High cognitive load
2. Abstract Style (Low Precision)
The abstract style uses general qualitative terms:
Relative scales: "fast", "slow", "medium"
Qualitative assessments: "high efficiency", "very responsive"
General goals: "user-friendly", "sustainable", "innovative"
These options create broad, interpretable directives rather than specific implementation details.
Accessible to everyone
Expresser loses power to interpreter
Low cognitive load
Expresser may not get what they want
A Practical Example
Consider how these styles differ when specifying smartphone preferences:
Abstract style: "I want an iPhone that is fast at multitasking and gaming."
Concrete style: "I want an iPhone with a processor with 20 cores @ 5GHz, 50 GPU cores @ 4GHz, and 32GB RAM."
The abstract version is accessible to anyone - you don't need to understand processor architecture to express a preference for a "fast" phone. However, this abstracts away important implementation details and leaves significant discretion to whoever interprets and executes the preference.
The concrete version is precisely verifiable - you can objectively determine if these specifications are met. Did you get 20 cores or not? However, it requires voters to have sufficient technical knowledge to understand what these specifications mean in practice. Concrete styles tend to exclude people without the knowledge required.
The concrete style is like an onion...it has layers
Even concrete options exist on a spectrum of technical depth.
Consider the progression:
Basic concrete: "20 CPU cores @ 5GHz"
Detailed concrete: "Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 chipset with ARM Cortex-X4 architecture"
Expert concrete: "PCB with FR-4 substrate, 0.8mm thickness, HDI via-in-pad design"
Each level targets different audiences. Circuit designers can evaluate PCB specifications, while general consumers understand core counts. An 8-year-old can grasp "faster phone" but not "HDI via-in-pad design." A hardware engineer needs the opposite - vague terms like "faster" provide no actionable guidance, while specific technical parameters enable informed decisions.
The MetaPoll author's job is skillfully matching the technical depth to voter expertise.
π― Key concept: Abstraction shifts power
The Abstraction vs Concrete trade-off reveals a key principle for authors to keep in mind: abstraction shifts decision power from preference-expressers to preference-interpreters.
When using abstract options, voters express general directions, but significant power transfers to whoever interprets and implements these preferences. This is neither good nor bad inherently - however it then requires that the voters place more trust in the good faith and skill of the interpreters and implementers.
When to Use Each Style
Use Concrete Options when:
Voters have the expertise to evaluate specific parameters
Precise execution is critical
You want to minimize interpretation discretion
The decision involves technical systems that can execute automatically
Accountability requires clear, measurable outcomes
Use Abstract Options when:
Voters lack technical expertise for implementation details
Flexibility in execution is valuable
The implementer has aligned incentives with voters
Lower cognitive load for voters is more important than precise specification
The decision involves complex trade-offs best left to experts
Expression to Execution
Concrete options allow for more direct integration with execution mechanisms:
Smart contracts can automatically execute based on precise parameters
Bots and autonomous agents can act without human interpretation
APIs can pass variables directly into programs
Abstract options, by contrast, typically require an interpretive layer - either human judgment or AI systems that translate abstract preferences into concrete actions.
π¨ Semantic Precision Design Guidelines
Match Complexity to Audience
The abstraction level should be calibrated to the technical literacy of participants
Be Intentional About Power Distribution
Abstract options delegate interpretation power to implementers
Concrete options keep decision authority with voters
Weigh Decision Consequences
High-stakes or irreversible decisions warrant more concrete specification
Low-risk decisions can safely use abstract terms
Resource-intensive choices need clear parameters
Consider Progressive Precision
Start abstract, increasing precision as you move deeper in decision hierarchies
Test for Meaningful Distinction
Voters should understand differences between options
Avoid false precision that doesn't affect outcomes
Ensure options represent genuinely different choices
Plan for Implementation Reality
Concrete specs must be technically feasible
Abstract goals need realistic interpretation pathways
Consider execution timelines and resource constraints
Maintain Consistency Within MetaPolls
Don't mix abstraction levels randomly within the same option layer
Use similar complexity across related options
Establish clear patterns voters can follow
These guidelines can help you think systematically rather than defaulting to one approach.
The Bottom Line
Neither concrete nor abstract options are inherently superior. The art lies in choosing the right level of abstraction for your specific context, audience, and goals. Think of it like choosing the right tool from a toolbox - each has its place, and skilled MetaPoll creators know when to use which approach.
The key is being intentional about this choice rather than defaulting to one style, and understanding that every abstraction decision is also a decision about how power flows through your governance system.
Last updated