Yahoo Forum Archive

Hi,
I don't think I've posted here before, but first of all can I just
thank all the folks who worked so hard to get these awards running. I
get the impression it was a gargantuan task and just wanted to let you
know that the efforts put in to keep things running so smoothly are
seriously appreciated. Also thanks to those who left me reviews :D

I just wanted to ask though - when the results came out, as I'm not on
email for this group (yahoo refuses to accept my broadband email and
so the one I'm forced to use is a pain for getting messages), a friend
forwarded me the results email and showed me where my stories were.

I just wondered, the email I got recently from admins to say what
awards the stories had got was different from the results one posted
here. I just wondered which one was right?

Thanks
SpaceWeavil

HI SpaceWeavil,

On 25 Oct 2005, at 10:24, jessica_ramage wrote:

> Hi,
> I don't think I've posted here before, but first of all can I just
> thank all the folks who worked so hard to get these awards running.  I
> get the impression it was a gargantuan task and just wanted to let you
> know that the efforts put in to keep things running so smoothly are
> seriously appreciated.  Also thanks to those who left me reviews :D
>

Thank you - I'm really glad the efforts paid off.

> I just wanted to ask though - when the results came out, as I'm not on
> email for this group (yahoo refuses to accept my broadband email and
> so the one I'm forced to use is a pain for getting messages), a friend
> forwarded me the results email and showed me where my stories were.
>
> I just wondered, the email I got recently from admins to say what
> awards the stories had got was different from the results one posted
> here.  I just wondered which one was right?
>

I'm afraid this is probably my error. Here's what I did.

For the Yahoo group message, I went through a page of "stats" (this is
before the current results page were available) that displays the
stories in each category, in the order they placed. It also shows all
the numbers of points, number of people who voted for them, total
characters, etc. - all the things we use to determine which story or
author wins. And it gave the place of the story or author using a
number system

1 = 1st place
2 = 2nd place
3 = 3rd place
4 = Honourable Mention
5 = everything else

I copied this into a word document and started cutting away the
unnecessary information. The main place I can see for error on this is
that I misread the numbering scheme and listed a story as honourable
mention that didn't actually receive it, or didn't list a story that
gave an honourable mentioning.

For the emails, I went through the results pages and typed the title of
each award, the place and category, and the story that won it (where
applicable) into a word document under the name of the author. I
essentially organized it by author. Then I copied each author's list
into an email that I sent the author. I can see a lot more room for
error on this, as I was typing out the name of the award by hand. It
would be very easy for me to be thinking one thing and type another
when I was going through so much.

I feel like I'm constantly saying "no, really, *these* are the real
results." Not a good situation! I think I made the mistake of putting
getting these things out quickly over doing more QC on them. Last year,
when so much was done behind the scenes by hand, I think there were
more eyes looking over each part. This year so much of it is done by
computer (thanks to Anthony's website) which makes it much easier - but
without vote checkers to double- and triple-check the results, I think
I underestimated the human factor and the capacity to make results.

This is something to discuss in the post-mortem: how many people need
to double-check the results (this year, no one double-checked my work),
and where the results need to be posted and in what fashion, and to
what extent we need to personalise emails to the authors. I think that
a lot of areas of the award were improved by the voting website, but
there are still some kinks to work out. Not with the website itself but
how we use it.

For this year: some people have said the awards page aren't that easy
to use if you're looking for a certain author because the pages display
a single category. I know Ainae is working on a page of all the winners
like we had last year, but in the mean-time I've copied the results
pages for all of the story categories and all of the author categories
into one file. I've also done some minor formatting things (such as
deleting all of the "Read Story Reviews" or "Read Author Reviews"
links) to make it more readable, but it's still a "quick and dirty"
job. The formattijng's not as nice as I'd like but the information
*should* be the same as what's on the website. Of course there's still
the human factor and it's entirely possible I've introduced some new
mistake. I am, after all, human. :-)

I'll upload this to the Yahoo group in a second. But the "official"
source of the results is the voting website. Just log in to
http://gabrielle.sytes.net/MEFA2005/index.php and click on "2005 MEFA
Story Results" or "2005 MEFA Author Results".

Cheers,
Marta

Thanks Marta. And yet again, seeing the effort that went into
something that seems so simple, I appreciate how much work you've
put into this.

I just wondered after reading the list of authors who had a big
proportion of stories nominated win something. I wasn't on the list
anywhere, and so it made realise I actually wasn't sure how many
stories I'd had nominated and which had got things (I got a bit
confused between author and story reviews, but that is because I'm
fairly slow, not because it actually is confusing).

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> HI SpaceWeavil,
>
> On 25 Oct 2005, at 10:24, jessica_ramage wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I don't think I've posted here before, but first of all can I
just
> > thank all the folks who worked so hard to get these awards
running.  I
> > get the impression it was a gargantuan task and just wanted to
let you
> > know that the efforts put in to keep things running so smoothly
are
> > seriously appreciated.  Also thanks to those who left me
reviews :D
> >
>
> Thank you - I'm really glad the efforts paid off.
>
> > I just wanted to ask though - when the results came out, as I'm
not on
> > email for this group (yahoo refuses to accept my broadband
email and
> > so the one I'm forced to use is a pain for getting messages), a
friend
> > forwarded me the results email and showed me where my stories
were.
> >
> > I just wondered, the email I got recently from admins to say
what
> > awards the stories had got was different from the results one
posted
> > here.  I just wondered which one was right?
> >
>
> I'm afraid this is probably my error. Here's what I did.
>
> For the Yahoo group message, I went through a page of "stats"
(this is
> before the current results page were available) that displays the
> stories in each category, in the order they placed. It also shows
all
> the numbers of points, number of people who voted for them, total
> characters, etc. - all the things we use to determine which story
or
> author wins. And it gave the place of the story or author using a
> number system
>
> 1 = 1st place
> 2 = 2nd place
> 3 = 3rd place
> 4 = Honourable Mention
> 5 = everything else
>
> I copied this into a word document and started cutting away the
> unnecessary information. The main place I can see for error on
this is
> that I misread the numbering scheme and listed a story as
honourable
> mention that didn't actually receive it, or didn't list a story
that
> gave an honourable mentioning.
>
> For the emails, I went through the results pages and typed the
title of
> each award, the place and category, and the story that won it
(where
> applicable) into a word document under the name of the author. I
> essentially organized it by author. Then I copied each author's
list
> into an email that I sent the author. I can see a lot more room
for
> error on this, as I was typing out the name of the award by hand.
It
> would be very easy for me to be thinking one thing and type
another
> when I was going through so much.
>
> I feel like I'm constantly saying "no, really, *these* are the
real
> results." Not a good situation! I think I made the mistake of
putting
> getting these things out quickly over doing more QC on them. Last
year,
> when so much was done behind the scenes by hand, I think there
were
> more eyes looking over each part. This year so much of it is done
by
> computer (thanks to Anthony's website) which makes it much easier -
but
> without vote checkers to double- and triple-check the results, I
think
> I underestimated the human factor and the capacity to make results.
>
> This is something to discuss in the post-mortem: how many people
need
> to double-check the results (this year, no one double-checked my
work),
> and where the results need to be posted and in what fashion, and
to
> what extent we need to personalise emails to the authors. I think
that
> a lot of areas of the award were improved by the voting website,
but
> there are still some kinks to work out. Not with the website
itself but
> how we use it.
>
> For this year: some people have said the awards page aren't that
easy
> to use if you're looking for a certain author because the pages
display
> a single category. I know Ainae is working on a page of all the
winners
> like we had last year, but in the mean-time I've copied the
results
> pages for all of the story categories and all of the author
categories
> into one file. I've also done some minor formatting things (such
as
> deleting all of the "Read Story Reviews" or "Read Author Reviews"
> links) to make it more readable, but it's still a "quick and
dirty"
> job. The formattijng's not as nice as I'd like but the information
> *should* be the same as what's on the website. Of course there's
still
> the human factor and it's entirely possible I've introduced some
new
> mistake. I am, after all, human. :-)
>
> I'll upload this to the Yahoo group in a second. But
the "official"
> source of the results is the voting website. Just log in to
> http://gabrielle.sytes.net/MEFA2005/index.php and click on "2005
MEFA
> Story Results" or "2005 MEFA Author Results".
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>

I
Dang Marta, is that all you did? Man! I don't even know my own name any
more and all I did was read what you had to do. You poor thing, take a break and
treat yourself to an entire, Outback Steakhouse, 7 layer death by chocolate
cake. You deserve it, or I'm Feanor's ugly twin sister Feacabrona.

Ghettoelleth
n a message dated 10/25/2005 8:50:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
melayton@gmail.com writes:
HI SpaceWeavil,

On 25 Oct 2005, at 10:24, jessica_ramage wrote:

> Hi,
> I don't think I've posted here before, but first of all can I just
> thank all the folks who worked so hard to get these awards running. I
> get the impression it was a gargantuan task and just wanted to let you
> know that the efforts put in to keep things running so smoothly are
> seriously appreciated. Also thanks to those who left me reviews :D
>

Thank you - I'm really glad the efforts paid off.

> I just wanted to ask though - when the results came out, as I'm not on
> email for this group (yahoo refuses to accept my broadband email and
> so the one I'm forced to use is a pain for getting messages), a friend
> forwarded me the results email and showed me where my stories were.
>
> I just wondered, the email I got recently from admins to say what
> awards the stories had got was different from the results one posted
> here. I just wondered which one was right?
>

I'm afraid this is probably my error. Here's what I did.

For the Yahoo group message, I went through a page of "stats" (this is
before the current results page were available) that displays the
stories in each category, in the order they placed. It also shows all
the numbers of points, number of people who voted for them, total
characters, etc. - all the things we use to determine which story or
author wins. And it gave the place of the story or author using a
number system

1 = 1st place
2 = 2nd place
3 = 3rd place
4 = Honourable Mention
5 = everything else

I copied this into a word document and started cutting away the
unnecessary information. The main place I can see for error on this is
that I misread the numbering scheme and listed a story as honourable
mention that didn't actually receive it, or didn't list a story that
gave an honourable mentioning.

For the emails, I went through the results pages and typed the title of
each award, the place and category, and the story that won it (where
applicable) into a word document under the name of the author. I
essentially organized it by author. Then I copied each author's list
into an email that I sent the author. I can see a lot more room for
error on this, as I was typing out the name of the award by hand. It
would be very easy for me to be thinking one thing and type another
when I was going through so much.

I feel like I'm constantly saying "no, really, *these* are the real
results." Not a good situation! I think I made the mistake of putting
getting these things out quickly over doing more QC on them. Last year,
when so much was done behind the scenes by hand, I think there were
more eyes looking over each part. This year so much of it is done by
computer (thanks to Anthony's website) which makes it much easier - but
without vote checkers to double- and triple-check the results, I think
I underestimated the human factor and the capacity to make results.

This is something to discuss in the post-mortem: how many people need
to double-check the results (this year, no one double-checked my work),
and where the results need to be posted and in what fashion, and to
what extent we need to personalise emails to the authors. I think that
a lot of areas of the award were improved by the voting website, but
there are still some kinks to work out. Not with the website itself but
how we use it.

For this year: some people have said the awards page aren't that easy
to use if you're looking for a certain author because the pages display
a single category. I know Ainae is working on a page of all the winners
like we had last year, but in the mean-time I've copied the results
pages for all of the story categories and all of the author categories
into one file. I've also done some minor formatting things (such as
deleting all of the "Read Story Reviews" or "Read Author Reviews"
links) to make it more readable, but it's still a "quick and dirty"
job. The formattijng's not as nice as I'd like but the information
*should* be the same as what's on the website. Of course there's still
the human factor and it's entirely possible I've introduced some new
mistake. I am, after all, human. :-)

I'll upload this to the Yahoo group in a second. But the "official"
source of the results is the voting website. Just log in to
http://gabrielle.sytes.net/MEFA2005/index.php and click on "2005 MEFA
Story Results" or "2005 MEFA Author Results".

Cheers,
Marta


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, ghettoelleth@a... wrote:

>
> ...or I'm Feanor's ugly twin sister Feacabrona.

LOL!!! Now *that's* a fanfic I'd love to see!

But really, Marta, it sounds like you're killing yourself. Please
holler if you need help with things like this! It's probably too late
now, but I would have been happy to be "another set of eyes" for you.
Next year, definitely...

Kathy (Inkling)

> Dang Marta, is that all you did? Man! I don't even know my own

name any

> more and all I did was read what you had to do. You poor thing,

take a break and

> treat yourself to an entire, Outback Steakhouse, 7 layer death by

chocolate

> cake. You deserve it, or I'm Feanor's ugly twin sister Feacabrona.
>
> Ghettoelleth
> n a message dated 10/25/2005 8:50:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> melayton@g... writes:
> HI SpaceWeavil,
>
> On 25 Oct 2005, at 10:24, jessica_ramage wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I don't think I've posted here before, but first of all can I

just

> > thank all the folks who worked so hard to get these awards

running. I

> > get the impression it was a gargantuan task and just wanted to

let you

> > know that the efforts put in to keep things running so smoothly

are

> > seriously appreciated. Also thanks to those who left me

reviews :D

> >
>
> Thank you - I'm really glad the efforts paid off.
>
> > I just wanted to ask though - when the results came out, as I'm

not on

> > email for this group (yahoo refuses to accept my broadband email

and

> > so the one I'm forced to use is a pain for getting messages), a

friend

> > forwarded me the results email and showed me where my stories

were.

> >
> > I just wondered, the email I got recently from admins to say what
> > awards the stories had got was different from the results one

posted

> > here. I just wondered which one was right?
> >
>
> I'm afraid this is probably my error. Here's what I did.
>
> For the Yahoo group message, I went through a page of "stats" (this

is

> before the current results page were available) that displays the
> stories in each category, in the order they placed. It also shows

all

> the numbers of points, number of people who voted for them, total
> characters, etc. - all the things we use to determine which story

or

> author wins. And it gave the place of the story or author using a
> number system
>
> 1 = 1st place
> 2 = 2nd place
> 3 = 3rd place
> 4 = Honourable Mention
> 5 = everything else
>
> I copied this into a word document and started cutting away the
> unnecessary information. The main place I can see for error on this

is

> that I misread the numbering scheme and listed a story as

honourable

> mention that didn't actually receive it, or didn't list a story

that

> gave an honourable mentioning.
>
> For the emails, I went through the results pages and typed the

title of

> each award, the place and category, and the story that won it

(where

> applicable) into a word document under the name of the author. I
> essentially organized it by author. Then I copied each author's

list

> into an email that I sent the author. I can see a lot more room for
> error on this, as I was typing out the name of the award by hand.

It

> would be very easy for me to be thinking one thing and type another
> when I was going through so much.
>
> I feel like I'm constantly saying "no, really, *these* are the real
> results." Not a good situation! I think I made the mistake of

putting

> getting these things out quickly over doing more QC on them. Last

year,

> when so much was done behind the scenes by hand, I think there were
> more eyes looking over each part. This year so much of it is done

by

> computer (thanks to Anthony's website) which makes it much easier -

but

> without vote checkers to double- and triple-check the results, I

think

> I underestimated the human factor and the capacity to make results.
>
> This is something to discuss in the post-mortem: how many people

need

> to double-check the results (this year, no one double-checked my

work),

> and where the results need to be posted and in what fashion, and to
> what extent we need to personalise emails to the authors. I think

that

> a lot of areas of the award were improved by the voting website,

but

> there are still some kinks to work out. Not with the website itself

but

> how we use it.
>
> For this year: some people have said the awards page aren't that

easy

> to use if you're looking for a certain author because the pages

display

> a single category. I know Ainae is working on a page of all the

winners

> like we had last year, but in the mean-time I've copied the results
> pages for all of the story categories and all of the author

categories

> into one file. I've also done some minor formatting things (such as
> deleting all of the "Read Story Reviews" or "Read Author Reviews"
> links) to make it more readable, but it's still a "quick and dirty"
> job. The formattijng's not as nice as I'd like but the information
> *should* be the same as what's on the website. Of course there's

still

> the human factor and it's entirely possible I've introduced some

new

> mistake. I am, after all, human. :-)
>
> I'll upload this to the Yahoo group in a second. But the "official"
> source of the results is the voting website. Just log in to
> http://gabrielle.sytes.net/MEFA2005/index.php and click on "2005

MEFA

> Story Results" or "2005 MEFA Author Results".
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi jessica_ramage,

On 25 Oct 2005, at 12:14, jessica_ramage wrote:

> Thanks Marta.  And yet again, seeing the effort that went into
> something that seems so simple, I appreciate how much work you've
> put into this. 
>

Thanks. I'm a recent graduate looking for my first job, so I have a lot
of time that I can do pretty routine stuff. A lot of pockets of time to
fill between interviews and waiting for people to get back to me, etc.
Stuff like this is very mechanical so I can do it without that much
trouble, while I'm waiting on other stuff to fall into place.

But it is nice to be appreciated, of course. ;-)

> I just wondered after reading the list of authors who had a big
> proportion of stories nominated win something. 

Just to be clear... those were people who had all of their nominations
win an award or an honourable mention. I started to compile those who
had most, and that really was a big list!

> I wasn't on the list
> anywhere, and so it made realise I actually wasn't sure how many
> stories I'd had nominated and which had got things (I got a bit
> confused between author and story reviews, but that is because I'm
> fairly slow, not because it actually is confusing).
>

If you'd like I'd be glad to explain the difference. But maybe it's
something that needs to go into the FAQs.

For the record... I have a work-in-progress set of FAQs that Thundera
and I are writing. They're at

http://www.freewebs.com/aure/mefafaqs.htm

But I don't think there are any explaining just what an author review
is. I could add one if you think it would help.

Marta

> But really, Marta, it sounds like you're killing yourself. Please
> holler if you need help with things like this! It's probably too late
> now, but I would have been happy to be "another set of eyes" for you.
> Next year, definitely...
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>

Well, I'm not *really* killing myself. I am trying to do too much too
quickly, but most of what I'm doing is "extra" stuff that's neat, but
not really necessary.

I did do some non-MEFA stuff today. I'm rereading "Goblet of Fire", and
I curled up by a fire (gas log but still feels cozy) with a mug of hot
cocoa and read that most of the afternoon. I also took a nap and worked
on incorporating some suggestions from a beta Marigold did for me, so
I'm feeling pretty refreshed.

But when something comes up next I will ask you first. Thanks for the
offer.

Marta