Dot Voting Template for User Research

The standard formula is 25% of total options, rounded up. For 20 options, give 5 dots. For 10 options, give 3 dots. Giving too many dots (50%+) produces a flat distribution where everything gets voted on. Giving too few (1 dot) forces artificial certainty and loses the "strength of preference" signal.

Allow stacking when you want to measure intensity of preference. If someone puts all 3 dots on a single option, that is a strong signal. Prohibit stacking when you want to maximize coverage and find the broadest consensus. There is no universally correct answer. Decide based on whether you value conviction or breadth for this particular decision.

Trust the process, but investigate the feeling. If the top-voted option surprises you, ask the group: "This got the most votes. Does anyone want to explain why they voted for it?" Often the group sees something the facilitator missed. If you genuinely believe the vote was uninformed (participants did not understand an option), re-explain and re-vote on the top 5 only.

No. Dot voting captures collective intuition, which is useful as a filter but not sufficient for final prioritization. It does not account for reach, effort, confidence, or strategic alignment. Use dot voting to narrow a long list, then apply a structured framework like [RICE](/frameworks/rice-framework) or [MoSCoW](/frameworks/moscow-prioritization) to the shortlist. The [prioritization workshop template](/templates/prioritization-workshop-template) shows how to combine both approaches.

Three mechanisms: silent voting (no discussion before or during), simultaneous placement (everyone votes at the same time), and the rule that the facilitator does not vote. If the most senior person in the room votes first or announces their preference before the vote, the exercise is compromised. Enforce the "silent" rule firmly. ---