Yahoo Forum Archive

>
> <snip>
> One idea that might have a similar affect would be to make final
> reviews visible throughout reading season and maybe even nomination
> season. This would encourage people to review earlier, so they

> let their reviews serve as a recommendation of sorts to others.

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

>
>
> One idea that might have a similar affect would be to make final
> reviews visible throughout reading season and maybe even nomination
> season. This would encourage people to review earlier, so they could
> let their reviews serve as a recommendation of sorts to others.

> I distinctly remember we even changed a summary where the author had

> story was 'the funniest parody' or something to that effect.

>
> I have to disagree with everyone that thinks nominators should
> recommend, or that reviews should be visible during reading and/or
> nominating seasons instead of during the actual voting season.
>
> Seeing reviews early will mean that the stories that get reviewed
> early will have an unfair advantage over the ones that don't.

> The whole reason we made it clear on the nomination form that the
> nominator put in a summary, and NOT a review/recommendation was so
> that ALL the stories were on a level playing field.

> Recommending and seeing the reviews early gives certain stories,
> certain genres an unfair advantage. Several people have already
> stated that they tend to read stories if they know the nominator,
> now if they see the reviews or recommendation, it seems to me that
> it really would be creating a problem where a group of like-minded
> readers would stick to their own group.

> I realize that everyone, in the interests of time, sticks to their
> favorite categories, but now, you're planning on letting the review
> and/or the recommendation narrow down the categories to a few
> peoples' favorite authors.

> So essentially, we're steering the whole process to the tastes of a
> few people who write reviews early, or write 'better' reviews than
> others.

> Just my nickels' worth.

> Seeing reviews early will mean that the stories that get reviewed
> early will
> have an unfair advantage over the ones that don't.

>
> Larian Elensar wrote:
>
> > Seeing reviews early will mean that the stories that get reviewed
> > early will have an unfair advantage over the ones that don't.
>
> I'm not sure about that. On the contrary, I discovered that I for
> the longest time deliberately chose stories to read which had no or
> only 1 review. I went much more by summaries (characters or settings
> were more important). At the end when I was really pressed for time
> I chose a few stories based on reviews. But overall that was not the
> deciding factor to read or review a story.

>
> Larian Elensar wrote:
>
> > Seeing reviews early will mean that the stories that get reviewed
> > early will
> > have an unfair advantage over the ones that don't.
>
> I'm not sure about that. On the contrary, I discovered that I for the
> longest time deliberately chose stories to read which had no or only 1
> review. I went much more by summaries (characters or settings were more
> important). At the end when I was really pressed for time I chose a few
> stories based on reviews. But overall that was not the deciding

> read or review a story.
>
> Chris

>

>
> Maybe for you not (and for me... well I just dived into a category and
> started to read), but others have stated to be guided by either the
> nominator or the reviews. Now if you want to attach the nominator
> recommendation to the story before it enters reading season (which
> basically would be the nominator's review (unless I misunderstood it)
> and tell people that they can review already during nomination season,
> this would mean that stories that were nominated at the end of
> nomination season have a clear disadvantage on those who were
> nominated at the beginning. I don't know if I got that suggestion/idea
> correctly, a lot has been said already, but I think that is what
> Larian tried to say here.
>
> Otherwise, I will just shut up.
>
> Rhapsody
>

On 11/5/05, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think I'm with Larien--I liked the way the awards worked this
> year. There was a long period where everyone was squirreled away
> reading and quietly uploading reviews.
>
> Then, in the final four weeks, the whole huge glut of finalized
> reviews were made public. I don't know about you, but seeing 2000
> reviews appear all of a sudden probably mitigates certain favoritism
> effects: there's so many, a random browsing may put one or two
> things on your list, but organizing a search through all those
> reviews is about as time-consuming as reading the summaries
> themselves to select fics.
>
> This strikes me as a nice balance between the possibility that
> reviews coming in in smaller numbers *might* help fics that were
> reviewed early to attract more readers and providing the stimulus to
> potential reviewers to actually review by showing them that Big
> Things have been going on all summer that they've been missing out
> on.
>
> I'd definitely go with hiding the nominator's name (except perhaps
> in the initial contact e-mail to the author).
>
> In order to try to gently cajole/entice people to read during the
> reading period, perhaps a monthly reminder should be sent out via LJ
> and Yahoo (and anyone else with LJs might want to repost the
> reminder when it comes up): One month gone, two months left, X many
> reviewers have reviewed: help good fics be counted, fandom readers!
> (Something short, sweet, and possibly vaguely corny.)
>
> Dwim
>


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

>> Are there things which give stories an "unfair advantage"? Hell

>

>
>
> In order to try to gently cajole/entice people to read during the
> reading period, perhaps a monthly reminder should be sent out via LJ
> and Yahoo (and anyone else with LJs might want to repost the
> reminder when it comes up): One month gone, two months left, X many
> reviewers have reviewed: help good fics be counted, fandom readers!
> (Something short, sweet, and possibly vaguely corny.)
>

>
> But equally there were several authors who were nominated, but
> didn't do a lot of reading/reviewing within the context of the
> awards.

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > But equally there were several authors who were nominated, but
> > didn't do a lot of reading/reviewing within the context of the
> > awards.
>
> Woooowa! Big deja-vu here of that discussion that went going on at
> Stories of Arda a while back.
>
> First: nowhere it is stated that is mandatory for an author to
> participate in the MEFA's once nominated.

> On 11/4/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > One idea that might have a similar affect would be to make final
> > reviews visible throughout reading season and maybe even nomination
> > season. This would encourage people to review earlier, so they could
> > let their reviews serve as a recommendation of sorts to others.
>
>   Yes, that would serve much the same purpose. And it would encourage
> authors too, I think, to be able to see that they had garnered some
> reviews
> early on in the process. A little squee now and then is good for the
> soul!
>

On 5 Nov 2005, at 00:41, Kathy wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > One idea that might have a similar affect would be to make final
> > reviews visible throughout reading season and maybe even nomination
> > season. This would encourage people to review earlier, so they
> could
> > let their reviews serve as a recommendation of sorts to others.
>
> I think that's an excellent idea, Marta, and I was thinking the same
> thing while reading Dreamflower's post.  Making reviews--especially
> nominator's reviews, which are often done early--visible sooner would
> not only serve as a recommendation of sorts, it would also provide a
> good model to those who are, perhaps, hesitant to leave reviews
> because they're not sure exactly how to go about it.  I remember
> seeing some questions early on about how to write a MEFA review;
> i.e., what style was appropriate.  The kinds of reviews I've seen in
> the MEFAs are often quite different from what people may be used to
> leaving in archives, and some people may be intimidated by the
> prospect. Remember, not all MEFA members (and nominators) are
> writers...some are readers only.
>

This is a good point, and thank you for reminding me where I heard
those comments. (I also saw some privately, and on other listservs.)
And style isn't something I can really quantify in a FAQ like I can a
lot of things. It's so personal! I can offer suggestions of what work
for me, but this is really something that works best when you can see
an example and then go adapt it to your own style.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

On 5 Nov 2005, at 02:09, MarigoldCotton@aol.com wrote:

> Marta said: "One idea that might have a similar affect would be to
> make final reviews visible throughout reading season and maybe even
> nomination season. This would encourage people to review earlier, so
> they could let their reviews serve as a recommendation of sorts to
> others."
>
> I think that this is a really good idea.
>
> Marigold
>

Thanks for weighing in. This seems like a popular idea.

Cheers,
Marta
--
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

On 5 Nov 2005, at 02:09, MarigoldCotton@aol.com wrote:

> Marta said: "One idea that might have a similar affect would be to
> make final reviews visible throughout reading season and maybe even
> nomination season. This would encourage people to review earlier, so
> they could let their reviews serve as a recommendation of sorts to
> others."
>
> I think that this is a really good idea.
>
> Marigold
>

Thanks for weighing in. This seems like a popular idea.

Cheers,
Marta
--
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)


*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

> I have to disagree with everyone that thinks nominators should
> recommend,

> On 11/4/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > One idea that might have a similar affect would be to make final
> > reviews visible throughout reading season and maybe even nomination
> > season. This would encourage people to review earlier, so they could
> > let their reviews serve as a recommendation of sorts to others.
>
>   Yes, that would serve much the same purpose. And it would encourage
> authors too, I think, to be able to see that they had garnered some
> reviews
> early on in the process. A little squee now and then is good for the
> soul!
>

On 11/5/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with having these
> visible during nomination season. I don't want people seeing that an
> author is popular to decide what they nominate. But I'm happy to have
> them available during what was called this year reading season and
> voting season. Is that a compromise you can live with?
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>
>
>
>


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

> and while I'm a bit cranky about categories that's another topic

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > But equally there were several authors who were nominated, but
> > didn't do a lot of reading/reviewing within the context of the
> > awards.
>
> Woooowa! Big deja-vu here of that discussion that went going on at
> Stories of Arda a while back.
>

> First: nowhere it is stated that is mandatory for an author to
> participate in the MEFA's once nominated.
>

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In order to try to gently cajole/entice people to read during the
> > reading period, perhaps a monthly reminder should be sent out via LJ
> > and Yahoo (and anyone else with LJs might want to repost the
> > reminder when it comes up): One month gone, two months left, X many
> > reviewers have reviewed: help good fics be counted, fandom readers!
> > (Something short, sweet, and possibly vaguely corny.)
> >
>
> How about a slogan? "The MEFAs: Vote early and often!" And we could
> get
> a mascot too...maybe Fatmouse. And prizes! Sulriel can bake peanut
> butter-pecan cookies for the person who leaves the most reviews. And
> I'll bet Lin would love to write a MEFA theme song for us...
>
> Hey, just trying to be creative here! ;)
>

On 5 Nov 2005, at 21:09, dwimmer_laik wrote:

> I think I'm with Larien--I liked the way the awards worked this
> year. There was a long period where everyone was squirreled away
> reading and quietly uploading reviews.
>
> Then, in the final four weeks, the whole huge glut of finalized
> reviews were made public. I don't know about you, but seeing 2000
> reviews appear all of a sudden probably mitigates certain favoritism
> effects: there's so many, a random browsing may put one or two
> things on your list, but organizing a search through all those
> reviews is about as time-consuming as reading the summaries
> themselves to select fics.
>

I think the problem a lot of people are struggling with is that
everyone *isn't* squirrelled away. Some people are - and bless them! a
lot of people wrote loads of reviews, yourself included, Dwim - but
other people either don't realise that they can vote, or aren't sure
how to write a good MEFA review.

> I'd definitely go with hiding the nominator's name (except perhaps
> in the initial contact e-mail to the author).
>

I'm curious about your "except perhaps in the initial contact e-mail"
comment. Perhaps I'm misreading that, but it sounds like you're
cautious about including the email even then.

> In order to try to gently cajole/entice people to read during the
> reading period, perhaps a monthly reminder should be sent out via LJ
> and Yahoo (and anyone else with LJs might want to repost the
> reminder when it comes up): One month gone, two months left, X many
> reviewers have reviewed: help good fics be counted, fandom readers!
> (Something short, sweet, and possibly vaguely corny.)
>


If we decide to hide reviews until after reading season (or even voting
season), this sounds like a really good idea. And that's far from a
made decision. I personally like releasing reviews throughout reading
season, but posts by you, Larian, and others have convinced me that
both ways have merit. I think I'm going to set up a poll for people to
vote in.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

> Maybe for you not (and for me... well I just dived into a category and
> started to read), but others have stated to be guided by either the
> nominator or the reviews.

> Now if you want to attach the nominator
> recommendation to the story before it enters reading season (which
> basically would be the nominator's review (unless I misunderstood it)

> and tell people that they can review already during nomination season,
> this would mean that stories that were nominated at the end of
> nomination season have a clear disadvantage on those who were
> nominated at the beginning. I don't know if I got that suggestion/idea
> correctly, a lot has been said already, but I think that is what
> Larian tried to say here.
>

> I
> really would like to see the whole field of who the nominator is gone
> next year.
>

> > The whole reason we made it clear on the nomination form that the
> > nominator put in a summary, and NOT a review/recommendation was so
> > that ALL the stories were on a level playing field.
>
> <snip>
> I often wonder... don't you want to be surprised by an author you
> don't know? Maybe I am weird (I wouldn't be surprised ;c) ).
>

>

> This is not an accusation, nor is it the prelude to demanding a
> tit-for-tat, scratch-my-back-now-I've-scratched-yours policy or
> attitude. It's just that we *need* to try and encourage said
> non-reviewing authors to join in even if it's only for a couple of
> reviews. They're the ones who are definitely aware of the MEFAs, after
> all. They're like a built-in pool of potential voters I'd love to see
> 'tapped' more effectively, though not in an 'emotional blackmail'
> sense.
>

> If there is really concern that pleas for more voters will be
> perceived as emotional blackmail, then include a prominent note in the
> author contact e-mail that goes something like this:
>
> "Accepting a story's nomination to participate in MEFAs carries
> *absolutely no obligation to participate in voting*. However, voting
> is what makes the awards work, and beyond that it is fun--we would
> therefore like to invite and encourage you to help us recognize
> worthwhile fanfiction and vote in this year's awards."
>

>
> I'm unclear as to how many were guided by previous reviews for a
> story they were considering reviewing, or even whether it has been
> reviewed before. Based on what I've heard, it seems like as many
> people (if not more) are going out of their way to read and vote
> for stories with *no* votes, as are specifically trying to read
> those with lots of votes. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I'm not
> sure that's such a huge concern.
>
> So if you're reading this message and you used already-published
> reviews as a way to decide what to read, please reply to this post
> telling me so. So I have something to balance it against, please do
> the same if you didn't really consider the reviews that had already
> been published.

> Hope that's clear! I've got a headache while I'm writing this and
> don't feel entirely lucid.

>>It's just that we *need* to try and encourage said
> > non-reviewing authors to join in even if it's only for a couple of
> > reviews. They're the ones who are definitely aware of the MEFAs,

> > all. They're like a built-in pool of potential voters I'd love to see
> > 'tapped' more effectively, though not in an 'emotional blackmail'
> > sense.
> >
>
> Do you have any specific suggestions for how to accomplish this? I
> expect it's hard to get someone to "just" review 5-10 stories because
> they feel guilty for not reviewing more. Personally I'd love to see
> more people review, even if it's just a small number apiece, but I'm
> afraid I just don't know practically how to do this.

> Dwim, I'm not knocking your idea. Like I said it's a good one. I'm more
> stating what I see to be an obvious roadblock.

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:

Hi Marta

> So if you're reading this message and you used already-published
> reviews as a way to decide what to read, please reply to this post
> telling me so. So I have something to balance it against, please do
> the same if you didn't really consider the reviews that had already
> been published.

Nopes, gonna sound boring, but I made my reading list in an excel
sheet when I was a liaision, working hard to complete nominations and
being introduced to a broad variety of authors. I did see so many
stories, summaries to see if for example a rating was correctly and so
on.. yeah I got interested. Then there was the categorisation on which
I did a lot of categories (4 to 5, I really don't want to remember),
so that list grew even more, because well, again you had to go through
the story details or sometimes reading the story to place it
correctly. This was all pre-review published period. So once my baby
finally allowed me to read & review, that was 2 and an half months
later and I started with my excel sheet, using the final extra days to
read the categories in in which I write the most, so I started with
Feanor's and Sons, read some extra stories of authors that I
discovered, started to branch out in that category... and so on. I
barely had time to look at other reviews or nominators given the time
that was left for me.

>> Now if you want to attach the nominator
>> recommendation to the story before it enters reading season (which
>> basically would be the nominator's review (unless I misunderstood
>> it)
>
> It's of course possible that I'm misunderstanding it... but I think
> the recommendation and the review are compledtely different things.
> The recommendation would have been a tagline -- just a few sentences
> about why someone else should red the piece. It would be written to
> the reviewer rather than a general review of the story or comments
> directed to the author. The nominator would still have to write a
> normal review.

I was simply summing up what Larian understood what was going on, but
so far I haven't seen that difference clearly communicated.

>> and tell people that they can review already during nomination
>> season, this would mean that stories that were nominated at the end
>> of nomination season have a clear disadvantage on those who were
>> nominated at the beginning. I don't know if I got that
>> suggestion/idea correctly, a lot has been said already, but I think
>> that is what Larian tried to say here.
>
> Rhapsody, the main advantage I can see is that people have longer to
> vote for that story. Am I missing something?

Yeah I guess Larian's post.

> To be clear, here is my position as of this moment. I may have my
> mind changed, of course:

<snip>

Sounds all good to me!

> Hope that's clear! I've got a headache while I'm writing this and
> don't feel entirely lucid.

Want a cookie?

Rhapsody

>
> >>It's just that we *need* to try and encourage said> > > non-

> > >

> For me, it's the fact that this is a competition where I don't have

> make the hard choice and vote only for one person that gets me off

> duff (or rather firmly on it) to review, and the sense that it *is*
> still a competition, despite the laid-back atmosphere is what
> motivates me to try to read as widely as possible. I want to be as
> fair a judge as I can be. That's sufficient motivation for me, and

> does partly turn on a sense of obligation.

> At the same time, I recognize I can't read all of them--nobody can.
> But that's no reason not to review. The only response to that as a
> reason not to review that seems reasonable to me is to paraphrase
> Wayne Gretzky: the only review you're guaranteed not to score with

> the one you never write. Screw it--write the review. Be "unfair", if
> "unfair" means that you have some judgment coming in that certain
> stories are *good*--that's why I review my nominees first. Nobody
> seems upset by this act of blatant partisanship, and in fact, most
> people are wishing that every reviewer would at least review the
> stories s/he nominated, even if s/he never reviewed a single other

> I think it would be worth it, given the concern about fairness, to
> ask: what do we mean by this word?
>
> I get a sense that one version of "fairness" means the following:
>
> 1) "Fair" refers to people who live behind the veil of ignorance. We
> should have no prior knowledge or anything to incline us towards any
> particular story, and if we do, we should suppress it--no nominator
> names, no visible reviews at any point (a fair point if one

> that a story with many reviews is likely to get still more, while
> stories with no reviews are likely to get fewer--reviewing

> offered up by some on this list seem to argue against that), no set
> order to the stories we see. Ideally, we would read every single fic
> and then vote.

> 3) Fairness is prioritizing structures and procedures that minimize
> the risk that anyone will have their feelings hurt because they

> themselves in a situation where they could compare themselves to

> authors and feel that they were inferior.
>
> To put it in the strongest possible terms, I have absolutely no
> sympathy for this as a standard for what is fair. It is a standard

> what is nice or kind and presumes the recipient of niceness/kindness
> is extremely fragile (I think someone actually used this word to
> describe such persons, and it struck me that this sense of niceness

> incredibly paternalistic towards its 'object'). It is also

> any way you slice it. All the concern about "author anxiety", which
> is, I think, being responded to through (1) above, is what points me
> to this sense of fairness.

> And I'll say it again: if we aim to satisfy this version of "fair",

> will guarantee ourselves massive frustration and we will fail wholly
> to achieve our goal to run a set of good-faith, good-fun, review-

> awards.

> How about a voting-season post intended for all the
> lists/chatboards/LJs we frequent and whom we contact when

> season begins?
>
> Post should include:
>
> 1) What is the aim of the awards: (as I understand it) to recognize
> via reviewer feedback good fics and to gain a wider audience for

> fics (also measured by feedback). We need as many people to
> participate as possible so that every fic has a fair shake of being
> read by *someone* who can make a judgment that this is a good story.

> This means: any nominated story that you know of and which you think
> is good is a story you can review without guilt. You are, after all,
> helping to recognize and recommend a story you, with your best
> judgment, think is good. We also highly encourage people to explore
> other stories they haven't read, but the main point is: read and
> review, whether a little or a lot. Recognize quality fic where you

> it, and as you are able to do so.

>
> 2) Voting strategies. We've had a number of people share their

> Hopefully, that'd open conversation in forums where people are most
> comfortable, rather than the post simply disappearing, undiscussed,
> under other posts. As a good-faith gesture designed to show that we
> are trying to reach people and make it easy for them to understand

> awards and participate, it might incline others to leave their more
> usual haunts and come participate at MEFAs.
>

On 6 Nov 2005, at 13:06, Nerwen Calaelen wrote:

> Justa quick comment on the "I'm feeling lucky"
> button, I can't remerber whether it was said earlier
> or not, but this would be very good, so long as it
> only took you to stories that you had not already
> reviewed.
>

Good point. I'm not sure whether it's been said yet or not, but if it
hasn't, I'm mainly interested in this if it can filter out stories that
I have reviewed (or marked not to review if we go with that). Otherwise
I think it would really lose its effectiveness as reading and voting
goes on.

Would it be a good idea to display more than one choice at a time?
Perhaps three at a time? I want to avoid any potential claim that
certain stories are being given preferential treatment because they
appear more often, and I think there would be less of that criticism if
the reviewer still chose a story once it was displayed in the random
story generator.

> One comment on something else, is that I would be very
> unhappy to see draft reviews go, unless there was
> something put in to allow the reader to mark for
> themselves stories that they were not interested in
> reviewing.

I agree with you. If it seems that most people are using draft reviews
for story comments I would encourage us to relabel draft reviews as
"Reviewers' Notes" or something like that, to make it more clear that
they won't be counted as reviews unless their status changes.

> Otherwise, I would read a story and decide
> that I was not going to review it and then have to try
> and remember myslef or check a note that I had made
> somewhere to ensure that I did not waste reading time
> rereading the same story  (this may sound harsh, but
> it is not ment to be - it is just that I marked
> stories this year and yet there were some stories that
> I would not have been able to say whether or not I had
> read then if I saw them a week or so later as they did
> not make a lasting impact on me - I have a good memory
> but usually forget things that I don't think are
> important to remember).

I probably have a worse memory than you, especially when it comes to
summaries. If someone said "that Boromir/Aragorn-in-Lothlorien story
you read last Thanksgiving" I might remember it, but probably not by
the "official" author summary.

> Back to NaNoWriMo...

Good luck! ANd thanks for taking the time to share your opinions.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

On 7 Nov 2005, at 02:16, Kathy wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm unclear as to how many were guided by previous reviews for a
> > story they were considering reviewing, or even whether it has been
> > reviewed before. Based on what I've heard, it seems like as many
> > people (if not more) are going out of their way to read and vote
> > for stories with *no* votes, as are specifically trying to read
> > those with lots of votes. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I'm not
> > sure that's such a huge concern.
> >
> > So if you're reading this message and you used already-published
> > reviews as a way to decide what to read, please reply to this post
> > telling me so. So I have something to balance it against, please do
> > the same if you didn't really consider the reviews that had already
> > been published.
>
> Hi Marta,
>
> To answer your question, the *number* of reviews a story had didn't
> influence what I read...I wasn't lured by stories with lots of
> reviews, nor did I seek out stories with few reviews (an admirable
> practice, but I'm afraid I'm not so noble!). But this is not to say
> that reviews had no influence whatsoever on my reading habits.
>
> I usually read the day's reviews as they appeared on this list...I
> found it strangely entertaining, and it's also how I was exposed to
> the widest range of stories. Occasionally a review would intrigue me
> enough that I would go to the database and look up the story...and
> sometimes even review it! :) 
>

I admit that I, too, really enjoyed the different reviews. Sometimes it
was entertaining, but it was always really interesting. I don't know
that they really impacted my voting habits, but I think I paced myself
well enough that I really feel that time crunch. So I'm not the best
judge.

If it's true that some people are impacted by reading a a review and
realising the story sounds interesting, then it seems that the only way
to be fair is that the reviews get roughly the same exposure. If a
review is released early, that seems less important than if it's being
released with 50 others or 500 others. The less the number of reviews
someone reads in one sitting, the more the chance that they'll give
each one careful consideration.

> This is probably the *only* reason I did any reading/reviewing
> outside my "box."  For the most part, I chose stories according to my
> area of interest, and decided whether to read/review them by clicking
> on the story link and reading the first paragraph or two. I could
> usually decide pretty quickly this way.  I also tended to read all of
> the reviews a story I was focusing on had garnered, but this was more
> out of curiosity than anything else. In general, the identity of a
> nominator or reviewer had very little influence on me...my tastes are
> rather quirky and I figure *I'm* the best judge of what I like to
> read!
>
> So to sum up, yes, I was sometimes influenced by reviews, but *not*
> by numbers, or reviewers...just the content. Don't know how much that
> helps you...!
>

It does, a bit. Let me ask you this question (and you may not have an
answer - that's okay!) How do you think your reviews would compare in
the following situations? Let the stories be of the same quality, etc.

1. A story where there were no nominations visible.
2. A story where the nominations were short or that seemed fairly
"generic" -- good, but not overly impressed with the story, if you know
what I mean.
3. A story where the nominations were really glowing -- 8-10 points
apiece, really dissecting the story.

> > Hope that's clear! I've got a headache while I'm writing this and
> > don't feel entirely lucid.
>
> Sorry about the headache! Hope we didn't give it to you (but we
> probably did...) Maybe Lin can get you some protein. Or cookies.
>

The headache is definitely stress-induced, but not by you guys. At
least I don't think so; if anything, you guys are providing a very
needed distraction from a tough stretch I'm going through in RL. I just
feel like I'm not doing you guys justice: my involvement is spotty, and
my ability to give these ideas a decent analysis is pretty limited. I
am doing my best, though, and I hope it will be enough.

Cheese is good... but cookies are better. ;-)

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

> Oh, yes -- in fact I wasn't thinking of seeing reviews during
> nomination
> season at all, if they were possible to see during reading/voting
> season.

> My
> base desire is to attract readers, after all, and once reading season
> is
> open, why not go for it?

> Since participation in the reading/reviewing part of the award by
> nominee
> authors isn't mandatory (and I don't think it should be!), the main
> question
> is *encouraging* more participation and a carrot always works better
> than a
> stick. Anthony's weekly addition of new reviews might address the
> concerns
> of the folks who are worried about advantages, and if he thinks it's
> feasible it probably is.

> An "I'm feeling lucky" button to pick a story (or
> one for stories and one for reviews) was another suggestion that I
> thought
> had some merit, although as a supplement to the ordinary choice of
> stories,
> not as a substitute.

> But I like being able to see reviews and reviewers and nominators and
> even
> to search by reviewer or nominator. I like an open process which
> gives me
> lots of choices when it comes to ways to pick the next story to read.
> I love
> keyword searches, too (thanks for including them!) and while I'm a bit
> cranky about categories that's another topic altogether!
> (I do kind of feel like I hijacked the original topic, though...)
>

> > So if you're reading this message and you used already-published
> > reviews as a way to decide what to read, please reply to this post
> > telling me so. So I have something to balance it against, please do
> > the  same if you didn't really consider the reviews that had already
> > been published.
>
> Nopes, gonna sound boring, but I made my reading list in an excel
> sheet when I was a liaision, working hard to complete nominations and
> being introduced to a broad variety of authors. I did see so many
> stories, summaries to see if for example a rating was correctly and so
> on.. yeah I got interested. Then there was the categorisation on which
> I did a lot of categories (4 to 5, I really don't want to remember),
> so that list grew even more, because well, again you had to go through
> the story details or sometimes reading the story to place it
> correctly. This was all pre-review published period. So once my baby
> finally allowed me to read & review, that was 2 and an half months
> later and I started with my excel sheet, using the final extra days to
> read the categories in in which I write the most,

> >> and tell people that they can review already during nomination
> >> season, this would mean that stories that were nominated at the end
> >> of nomination season have a clear disadvantage on those who were
> >> nominated at the beginning. I don't know if I got that
> >> suggestion/idea correctly, a lot has been said already, but I think
> >> that is what Larian tried to say here.
> >
> > Rhapsody, the main advantage I can see is that people have longer to
> > vote for that story. Am I missing something?
>
> Yeah I guess Larian's post.
>

> >>It's just that we *need* to try and encourage said
> > >  non-reviewing authors to join in even if it's only for a couple
> of
> > >  reviews. They're the ones who are definitely aware of the MEFAs,
> after
> > >  all. They're like a built-in pool of potential voters I'd love
> to see
> > >  'tapped' more effectively, though not in an 'emotional blackmail'
> > > sense.
> > >
> >
> > Do you have any specific suggestions for how to accomplish this? I
> > expect it's hard to get someone to "just" review 5-10 stories
> because
> > they feel guilty for not reviewing more. Personally I'd love to see
> > more people review, even if it's just a small number apiece, but I'm
> > afraid I just don't know practically how to do this.
>
> For me, it's the fact that this is a competition where I don't have to
> make the hard choice and vote only for one person tht gets me off my
> duff (or rather firmly on it) to review, and the sense that it *is*
> still a competition, despite the laid-back atmosphere is what
> motivates me to try to read as widely as possible. I want to be as
> fair a judge as I can be. That's sufficient motivation for me, and it
> does partly turn on a sense of obligation.
>
>

> The only suggestion I can make is to emphasize, again and again, that
> this obligation to fairness is a sliding scale.  The point of the
> awards, as I see it, is to help recognize *good* stories. Not the
> *best* stories, but *good* stories (and we'll assume that the ones a
> majority of people think are best will rise to the top of the
> reviewing pile and place in some way). I would not claim to know whose
> stories are best. I would claim to know that, coming into MEFAs, I
> have some judgment, not unfounded thanks to past experience, of which
> stories are good. I therefore *should* write at least a line or two
> for those stories, if not more, insofar as I am able. And I should try
> to read others, in case they, too, meet my sense of what a good story
> is.
>

> How about a voting-season post intended for all the
> lists/chatboards/LJs we frequent and whom we contact when nominations
> season begins?
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:

Hi Marta,

> Interesting! Thanks for letting me know.

Yeah not the very usual reviewer, I know, so I am more of a deviant I
guess.

> Personally I was most influenced by the author, and the summary.
> Length also played a huge factor; if a piece was less than about
> five chapters on a subject I was interested in or by an author whose
> work I had enjoyed in the past, I usually read the first two
> screens. If I was interested I would then push myself to finish it,
> and decide where to go from there.

Really? Oh no I read bigger pieces, for me the way the story is
written is far more important then a review left (no offense intended
to reviewers). So I rather look at the story itself. It also happened
that when I read a story, I looked at the author and thought: I have
to remember this name and I eagerly searched for more, found it and
reviewed those pieces even not nominated for the MEFA's. ;c)

>>> Rhapsody, the main advantage I can see is that people have longer
>>> to vote for that story. Am I missing something?
>>
>> Yeah I guess Larian's post.
>>
>
> It's quite possible. Would you mind tracking down the link at the
> Yahoo group for me? Or forwarding it to me, if you still have it? I
> either read it and for some reason am completely blocking it out;
> deleted it by accident; or Yahoo is being slow as ents.

I read everything on the yahoo group. Message id 6011 and 6012 and um
6019.

Rhapsody

>
> Would it be a good idea to display more than one choice at a time?
> Perhaps three at a time? I want to avoid any potential claim that
> certain stories are being given preferential treatment because they
> appear more often, and I think there would be less of that criticism if
> the reviewer still chose a story once it was displayed in the random
> story generator.
>

> As far as I understand the process, if you set your filters and then

> "pick a random choice" button, the program would have to obey the

> first, and then choose from whatever was left. So if you'd filtered

> you'd already reviewed, you would get a random story which you hadn't
> reviewed. Is that right Anthony?

>

On 11/8/05, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
>
>
> During the 2005 voting season, we realized that the quote rule hadn't
> been understood and so skimmed all the reivews looking for quotes and
> other problems as they came through. It's too much. I won't be able
> to do it next year and I highly recommend that we rely on an honor
> system backed up be a reporting by peers system. - if you see a
> problem, let the admin know. We didn't see *any* at all that had any
> element of anything except confusion or lack of knowing the rules.
>
> My suggestion on releasing the reveiws would be to send them out
> periodically regardless of number. Wouldn't that be easier - for
> example: to relase all the finalized reivews each wednesday?
>
> Sulriel
>
>
>
>


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

> Okay, that makes sense, I think. But I would like to ask you to clarify
> one thing. A sense of responsibility to whom? Is it the authors? The
> awards as an entity? The fandom as a whole? Or something else entirely.

> I'm not sure whether everyone doesn't feel this sense of
> responsibility, or whether they do feel a responsibility to the fandom
> and fulfil it in other ways, or whether they just don't have the
> time/energy to get involved. And I don't know how to encourage that
> sense of responsibility.

> <snipping of interesting discussion of "fair">
>
> Just to be upfront, when I read the word "fair" in this context I
> usually interpret it to mean that no story has an advantage or
> disadvantage not due to some intrinsic quality of the story.

> principle similar to what we tried to do with limiting nominations: we
> were trying to limit the nominations without at the same putting too
> much burden on any one person.

> Here are some qualities which I think it would be fair to judge by:

> - the length of the story is short or long enough to get me to start it

> - I have enjoyed this author's work in the past

> - the summary lets me know the plot is about something I will enjoy

> - the quality of the story makes me like it and want to review it

> You'll notice that the second group are all factors that are relating
> to the story.

> the content, and what-not. It may not be "fair" in the sense that every
> story gets an equal chance of me reviewing the story, but it's fair in
> that if there's some factor that keeps me from reviewing, it is within
> the author's control.. On the other hand the first group are all things
> that are determined by someone other than the author.
>

> > How about a voting-season post intended for all the
> > lists/chatboards/LJs we frequent and whom we contact when nominations
> > season begins?
> >
>
> This is a really good idea, Dwim. I've made note of it, though it's
> possible I'll forget by this tme next year, of course. Please do remind
> me if you remember.

> That's an absolute standard of fairness based solely on the object.
> And I'm not saying it's illegitimate--it's necessary to have that
> sense, but I do think we've got a lot of tension between it and the
> need to get people to read as much as they can to give as many >stories
> as possible a chance at being read (another standard of fairness). >And
> in a lot of forums, it

> is the most appropriate standard to go by,
> although it assumes certain things about the situation that I think
> are rarely fulfilled by projects that run on a spirit of >volunteerism.
>
> That latter sense

> better acknowledges that inclination of *some sort*
> is going to play a role, here.

> > Just to be upfront, when I read the word "fair" in this context I
> > usually interpret it to mean that no story has an advantage or
> > disadvantage not due to some intrinsic quality of the story.
>
> That's an absolute standard of fairness based solely on the object.
> And I'm not saying it's illegitimate--it's necessary to have that
> sense, but I do think we've got a lot of tension between it and the
> need to get people to read as much as they can to give as many stories
> as possible a chance at being read (another standard of fairness).

> My suggestion on releasing the reveiws would be to send them out
> periodically regardless of number. Wouldn't that be easier - for
> example: to relase all the finalized reivews each wednesday?
>
> Sulriel

On 8 Nov 2005, at 19:07, Chris Grzonka wrote:

> >
> > Would it be a good idea to display more than one choice at a time?
> > Perhaps three at a time? I want to avoid any potential claim that
> > certain stories are being given preferential treatment because they
> > appear more often, and I think there would be less of that
> criticism if
> > the reviewer still chose a story once it was displayed in the random
> > story generator.
> >
>
> I think that would be overthinking it a bit. If it is a random story
> generator, you have to sit there for a good long time to get the same
> story
> twice, especially if we get again close to a thousand stories. At
> least that
> is my experience with random number generators. It is different if
> the pool
> of stories is small...
>

Fair enough. I just thought I would raise that concern. Not that it's a
real concern of mine -- more a "do we need to worry about this?" topic.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

> One of the ideas I've been waiting to bring up was that next year we
> just
> make it a rule -- all quotes over three words long have to be entirely
> within the "blockquotes" tags. Put a reminder of how to do it right
> on the
> review entry page, so that no one has an excuse not to use the tags.
> The
> three words limit allows for the reviewer to use some delicious short
> phrase
> from the story without fretting, but longer passages would always be
> out of
> the count towards awards. And nobody would have to count
> characters... If an
> author saw a review pop up with a quote that violated a well
> publicized
> rule, they'd understand that an admin is going to come along and
> blockquote
> before the votes are finalized.
>

>
> During the 2005 voting season, we realized that the quote rule hadn't
> been understood and so skimmed all the reivews looking for quotes and
> other problems as they came through.  It's too much.  I won't be able
> to do it next year and I highly recommend that we rely on an honor
> system backed up be a reporting by peers system.  - if you see a
> problem, let the admin know.  We didn't see *any* at all that had any
> element of anything except confusion or lack of knowing the rules.
>

> My suggestion on releasing the reveiws would be to send them out
> periodically regardless of number.  Wouldn't that be easier - for
> example: to relase all the finalized reivews each wednesday?
>

On 9 Nov 2005, at 00:45, dwimmer_laik wrote:

>
> > My suggestion on releasing the reveiws would be to send them out
> > periodically regardless of number.  Wouldn't that be easier - for
> > example: to relase all the finalized reivews each wednesday?
> >
> > Sulriel
>
> May I add: releasing in batches means I can only obsess over the
> possibility of new reviews at specific intervals. Helps greatly with
> the focusing of attention on less fun tasks...
>

*snerk* So you have no excuse for checking every three hours? Won't
that make procrastinating that much harder?

In all honesty, I think this is another reason in favor of this idea.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

On 8 Nov 2005, at 19:58, Anthony Holder wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> As far as releasing votes every week. Someone mentioned that it would
> allow the admins to skim them for quotes, etc., before they were
> released.
>
> If this is a good idea, how about an admin 'marking' system, where
> they
> wouldn't be released until they had been skimmed? It seems like it
> wouldn't be too hard, since I already have the basic marking thing
> done.
>

I suggested that almost off the cuff, and when I think about it more
carefully, I don't know that it's really needed. The main thing we
looked for this year was quotes that were too long. I think the key is
to:

1. Make the rules obvious
2. Have good FAQs so people *know* the rules (or have no excuse for not
knowing them, at least).
3. Let members who see reviews that don't fall within the rules'
guidelines report such reviews to the admins.
4. The reviews will blockquote the parts of the reviews that are
invalid. So if a review is 9 points but it includes a quote that's too
long and taking out that quote leaves 6 points, in the end the review
will count for 6 points.

> Another option is to release them when more than XX have been
> accumulated, with XX being 100 or 200 or 500, or whatever. I could
> have
> a countdown up, showing how many more reviews are needed before a
> dump,
> encouraging folks to write more reviews, so they can read some.
>

Anthony, one idea that's been suggested (I can't remember by whom) is
that reviews be released weekly. So Friday afternoon someone flicks a
switch or pushes a button or whatever that makes all the reviews posted
that past week visible.

>

<snip>
> I haven't seen anybody suggest a viable fourth option for marking
> reviews, so I was about to suggest that the three-tiered system would
> be enough, but I can think of one. How about an 'I want to review this
> story, but don't have time now' option.
>

Just so I'm clear - by this you mean that the person wants to come back
and review this piece later but doesn't want to see the piece in the
meantime? So later they would select a filter option "Pieces I Plan to
Review" or something like that (similar to the options to show stories
for which you've entered a draft review, or tentative, or final)?

> I think that this would be really easy to add, so I'm going to put it
> on my ToDo list, with the assumption that you'll all think it's a good
> idea.
>

At this moment it seems like a good idea. We'll see if anyone is
against it; I can't think of why they would be, but I might be
surprised.

> BTW, it was I who suggested the "I'm feeling lucky" link. That would,
> of course, be in addition to the standard filters and searches. I have
> seen the comments, and I think I could fairly easily limit the results
> to stories that haven't been reviewed (or marked with ReviewerNotes or
> PlanToReview). It would be pretty easy, I think, to return 1 or 3 or
> 10
> stories, though as Chris says, if I just use the random number
> generator in MySQL or PHP, it should work fine just to do one.
>

Okay, that sounds good. I don't know why I couldn't remember who
created it, and if you can do it easily it sounds like a good thing.
I'm not sure I'd use it, but I might particularly toward the end if I
was feeling cramped for time. I can certainly see how it would be nice
for others, though.

Cheers,
Marta

*****
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

(Nelson Mandela)

>
> > Okay, that makes sense, I think. But I would like to ask you to
> clarify
> > one thing. A sense of responsibility to whom? Is it the authors? The
> > awards as an entity? The fandom as a whole? Or something else
> entirely.
>
> All three. <snippage>

> <snip play analogy - makes sense to me>

> > It's a
> > principle similar to what we tried to do with limiting nominations:
> we
> > were trying to limit the nominations without at the same putting too
> > much burden on any one person.
>
> It is similar, but with a key difference: nominations occur
> spontaneously and what rouses someone to nominate a story is not
> anything provided by the MEFAs. That is strictly beyond our control.
> The only thing we have to control is how many stories are coming in,
> and to do so in a way that doesn't disproportionately affect one
> particular group of reviewers. Here, disproportion is measured by
> whether it's structurally easier for one set of people to contribute
> to the pool of nominees at the expense of other potential nominators
> who are presumed to be no less entitled to contribute. The quality of
> the objects contributed is not at stake, nor is motivating people to
> nominate.
>

> <snip>
>
> > Here are some qualities which I think it would be fair to judge by:
>
> Ok, here I'm going to be the obnoxious critic just to try and make the
> point that these examples don't actually depend on the standard you
> just gave me.
>
> > - the length of the story is short or long enough to get me to
> start it
>
> This depends on my real life time management issues, not on the
> intrinsic properties of the story.
>

> > - I have enjoyed this author's work in the past
>
> Why should this be permitted under an objective standard of fairness
> that is based on the story's properties and nothing else? The author
> may have written good things in the past, but that has absolutely
> nothing to say about the specimen at hand.
>

> > - the summary lets me know the plot is about something I will enjoy
>
> Well, the summary has been wrong in the past. Technically, the summary
> is not intrinsic to the story, although it is intrinsic to the story
> form that initially presents itself to the reader. (I know, I know,
> that was a hair-splitting nitpick, but nevertheless...)
>

> <snip>
> > You'll notice that the second group are all factors that are
> relating
> > to the story.
>
> Hold on! We're sliding here. "Related to the story" is not the same as
> "no story has an advantage or disadvantage not due to some intrinsic
> quality of the story". That's not a trivial difference of
> language--it's allowing in factors your original definition wouldn't
> have permitted.
>

>
> Hi RabidSamFan,
>
> I just realised that in an email earlier, I think I referred to you as
> RSF. Hope that doesn't offend! I'm just lazy. ;-)

> One of the ideas I've been waiting to bring up was that next year we
> > just
> > make it a rule -- all quotes over three words long have to be entirely
> > within the "blockquotes" tags. Put a reminder of how to do it right
> > on the
> > review entry page, so that no one has an excuse not to use the tags.
> > The
> > three words limit allows for the reviewer to use some delicious short
> > phrase
> > from the story without fretting, but longer passages would always be
> > out of
> > the count towards awards. And nobody would have to count
> > characters... If an
> > author saw a review pop up with a quote that violated a well
> > publicized
> > rule, they'd understand that an admin is going to come along and
> > blockquote
> > before the votes are finalized.
> >
>
> I think it would be more clear-cut (and easier to remember) if people
> had to blockquote *all* quotes. At three words, I don't think the quote
> will affect scores, or if it does it's not too much of a burden for the
> reviewer to expand upon it.
>
> My only question is, should we draw a distinction between quotes from
> the piece being reviewed and quotes from other sources? I remember
> being told by someone in a comment that my piece reminded them of a
> quote from some published book -- not Tolkien or anything! I was
> tickled, and that added a nice dimension to *my* piece that I hadn't
> thought of before. And I think it takes as much time and effort to go
> and look up a quote as to type that amount into the review of original
> thoughts. But this may be making things too complicated. If people want
> to go with a "no quotes, period" rule I'm okay with that.