Yahoo Forum Archive

> I also am one whose first choice is to read by author, because
> authors typically maintain a style and genre and if I like one of
> their works I'm likely to like them all - and I find the same goes
> for like-minded reviewers - but it doesn't matter a lot to me if it's
> a verbose review or a simple "I liked this", because if I know
> someone shares my tastes I'm likely to read something they like
> simply because they liked it regardless of what they specifically
> said about it. -and that would transfer to nominators. I suppose
> that could be called cliquish, but that isn't the heart of it, it's
> simply that some people have similar tastes; it doesn't mean we chant
> together under the moon and plot the demise of those with other
> tastes.

>
>
> We ALL read authors and categories that are familiar to us, but if we
> publish
> the recommendations and reviews early, it might give the APPEARANCE we're
> trying to skew the voting toward particular authors by giving them more
> 'publicity'
>
> If you all want to snark back at me for bringing it up, fine. I'm trying
> to
> bring you the view from outside the little circle of your 'in-group' of
> administrators.

>
> --- sulriel <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
>
> > I also am one whose first choice is to read by author, because
> > authors typically maintain a style and genre and if I like one of
> > their works I'm likely to like them all - and I find the same

> > for like-minded reviewers - but it doesn't matter a lot to me if

> > a verbose review or a simple "I liked this", because if I know
> > someone shares my tastes I'm likely to read something they like
> > simply because they liked it regardless of what they specifically
> > said about it. -and that would transfer to nominators. I suppose
> > that could be called cliquish, but that isn't the heart of it,

> > simply that some people have similar tastes; it doesn't mean we

> > together under the moon and plot the demise of those with other
> > tastes.
>
> Wow, didn't realize I'd accused anyone of chanting under the moon.

> the sarcasm? I was only putting forth a concern, didn't mean to

> defensive.
>
> It doesn't matter if you don't do that, if the appearance of that

> there. Need I mention the other awards program that is continually

> being cliqueish, no matter the truth? You have to avoid the

> making it easier for the same small groups to consistently get

> win.
>
> We ALL read authors and categories that are familiar to us, but if

> the recommendations and reviews early, it might give the APPEARANCE

> trying to skew the voting toward particular authors by giving them

> 'publicity'
>
> If you all want to snark back at me for bringing it up, fine. I'm

> bring you the view from outside the little circle of your 'in-

> administrators.
>

>
>
> Sincere apologies, it was meant in good humor, not in snarkiness. I
> don't joke around when I'm snarky, I tend to be more blunt.

>
> I am not in any 'in-groups' and no longer have any administrative
> function with the MEFAs.

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
<snip>
> I'm basing my desire for early reviews on my experience as a
> librarian.

Well this is a nice example where one librarian is completely
different then the other (and most likely had a different education
and career in it). Although librarian.. well, within 3 weeks no more.

Yes, off topic, but this line made me smile :)

Rhapsody

>
> But my point is this...Since I am in this as only a reader/voter
> this
> year, I don't see all the behind the scenes things that go on, and
> it
> doesn't matter if there isn't anything like that going on, if the
> perception is there, it has to be dealt with.
>

> My biggest problem with recommending and reviewing early (and
> nomination limits would take care of this concern as well), is that
> when one or two people nominate a lot of stories, and one or two
> reviewers vote on those stories just because that person nominated
> them, it DOES look cliqueish. Nominating limits, and keeping
> everything on a level playing field by NOT publicizing the reviews
> avoids that.

>
> Actually--here's a proposal that just now occurred to me: no
> reviews
> available until *nominating* season ends, and then erase the
> difference
> between "reading" and "voting" season, and call it reading/voting
> season,
> and make the finalized reviews visible then. Keep tentative and
> draft
> reviews invisible of course, just like now.
> Encourage everyone to vote as early and as often as possible, and
> encourage
> nominators to vote on their nominees ASAP. Also perhaps encourage
> people to
> discuss their "voting strategies" on the group *and* on the LJ. (I
> was
> fascinated by Dwim's account of how organized she was with her
> voting.)
> This will help newcomers to the group who may feel a bit
> intimidated by all
> the stories, and then can get some ideas of how they can go about
> their own
> voting.
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...> wrote:
If
> nothing else, I think that when people see reviews starting to
> appear, it reminds them that "Oh yeah, it's voting season, I'd better
> get off my duff and start voting!"


I actually did like the way it was done this year...the final reviews
showing on day one of voting season, the tentative showing on the last
day. Because you're right, it did give some of us slackers a bit of a
poke. I would just hate to see them revealed any earlier than the
start of voting season, (and I like separate voting/reading seasons,
btw), because that does give the stories with early early reviews a
distinct advantage--although that's only my opinion.


>
> You know, I think the biggest contributor to either the perception or
> reality of cliquishness or favoritism is not the influence of
> nominators or reviews, but the fact that so few people actually do
> review...it gives those dedicated souls who DO leave a lot of reviews
> enormous power. Leaward posted the stats on the percentage of MEFA
> members who had voted, and I was frankly shocked. Surely there must
> be some ways we can all agree on to encourage more voting next year...
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>


And you're right. Obviously, the more participants we have, the
better. Making the process as easy as possible is one solution, which
is hopefully, being done every year.

The only thing I can think of, and have done, is to talk about the
awards on my LJ (which doesn't help much, as I keep it locked for my
friends list usually), or promote them on different lists.
Unfortunately, I tend to not talk them up until the voting season,
when it's almost too late.

I don't know, you can't force people to participate, so I guess we
just have to do what we can.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laura" <thunderalaura@juno.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new
topic?)


-- <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:
>> Actually--here's a proposal that just now occurred to me: no
>> reviews available until *nominating* season ends, and then erase
>> the difference between "reading" and "voting" season, and call it
>> reading/voting season, and make the finalized reviews visible then.
>> Keep tentative and draft reviews invisible of course, just like now.
>> Encourage everyone to vote as early and as often as possible, and
>> encourage nominators to vote on their nominees ASAP.

I'm intrigued by this idea, but it also concerns me. There's the issue of
unfair advantage, of course, for those stories that attract early reviews.
But really, I don't think that's a major issue. Some of us ARE influenced by
nominators, but like I said up above, it's primarily an issue of time and
preference. Something I would like to point out, though, is the idea of
frustrated authors if we did do away with hidden reviews during reading
season. I had from a few authors who were upset because they couldn't see
any reviews for their story while some stories had many reviews. I needed to
explain the idea behind tentative and draft reviews several times. Now,
let's take these same authors (who are usually pretty new at writing and
aren't confident enough yet to handle an absence of feedback) and tell them
that they have to wait four months instead of two months when looking for
reviews. And you can tell them that some people review later than others and
some reviews are stored as tentative, but it doesn't change the fact that
these are frequently young authors who are uncertain about their work and
would love to know whether or not they should continue writing. Sometimes
their impetus for witing isn't strong enough to last three months, either.

This wouldn't make the reviews appear *later* but *sooner*--as soon as
"reading/voting" season began, just as reviews appeared when voting season
began. They would not have to wait as long at all. And I have to say, I like
the idea Anthony came up with of "dumping" them in once a week, so just one
story with a review would not have an "unfair" advantage. (Not that *I*
think it would be unfair, but this would address the concerns of those who
that it is.)

On a side note, I also liked the phenomenon of 2000+ reviews suddenly
appearing one day. I thought it was pretty neat, and I wouldn't want to do
away with that, eithor.

Well, this *would* do away with *that*, but there would still be the
pleasant phenomenon at the end when all the tentative reviews appeared.
Dreamflower

Thundera

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
As a way of life, reality is highly overrated.
Dahak-Hercules: The Legendary Journeys
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~








Yahoo! Groups Links

>
> I don't think any reviews should be visible during nomination season,
> but I'm not sure I'm completely clear on the difference - on the need
> for the difference - between reading season and voting season with
> the new database.

> It seems to me that the reviews should either be visible or not. 
> Either post them immed when finalized from the start of reading
> season, or have no reviews available to be read at all until the end
> of voting season.
>

> I agree with the concerns that are addressing readership following
> more fluent reviewers and I think that could be addressed by hiding
> even the final reviews until the end of voting season.
>

> BUT
>
> I think the disadvantage is well off-set by the number of new readers
> and reviews that the existing reviews garner. 
>

> I also am one whose first choice is to read by author, because
> authors typically maintain a style and genre and if I like one of
> their works I'm likely to like them all - and I find the same goes
> for like-minded reviewers - but it doesn't matter a lot to me if it's
> a verbose review or a simple "I liked this", because if I know
> someone shares my tastes I'm likely to read something they like
> simply because they liked it regardless of what they specifically
> said about it. -and that would transfer to nominators.  I suppose
> that could be called cliquish, but that isn't the heart of it, it's
> simply that some people have similar tastes; it doesn't mean we chant
> together under the moon and plot the demise of those with other
> tastes.
>

> I made an effort, with the 2005 MEFAs, to read a selection from each
> cate and so forced myself outside my usual bounds (and was very glad
> for it) - I set a goal for 100 reviews and had settled back to other
> work once I reached that - but was so intrigued by going through the
> reviews as they came in, that I completed another 100 reviews before
> the end of the season.  I wouldn't have done that second 100 without
> the 'recommendations' of the reviewers, because those were stories
> that I didn't click on based on the authors summery.
>

> Also, as an author I really liked having the reviews gradually.
> Every time I received one it made me feel good. I'd hate to limit
> that to one burst.

> You know, I think the biggest contributor to either the perception or
> reality of cliquishness or favoritism is not the influence of
> nominators or reviews, but the fact that so few people actually do
> review...it gives those dedicated souls who DO leave a lot of reviews
> enormous power.  Leaward posted the stats on the percentage of MEFA
> members who had voted, and I was frankly shocked.  Surely there must
> be some ways we can all agree on to encourage more voting next year...
>

> Considering the wide number of categories and the vast variety of
> stories
> in them, I don't see how any of it can be viewed as "cliquish". 
> Unlike
> certain groups which are overwhelmed with Elf stories or Silmarillion
> stories, or I think there is even one award limited to Hobbit
> stories,  the
> MEFAs cover the broad spectrum of what is available across *all* of
> JRRTs
> work: not only Elves and Hobbits, but Men and Dwarves and even
> Ents--even
> the villians--Orcs, Trolls, the Men of Harad and Rhun, not only LotR
> and the
> Hobbit, but the Silm and Unfinished Tales and even HoME, not only
> book-verse, but movie-verse and crossovers.  I don't think *any* other
> Tolkien fandom award covers such a multitude of categories.
>

> As to people who seem to be guided by *who* nominated a piece, I don't
> really have a big problem with not showing who the nominator
> is--although I
> think it should be rigged so the *author* will know who nominated
> her, at
> the least--because I paid no attention to that at all.  I voted first
> by
> category, and then a few times by author, and then as my time got
> short,
> totally at random.
>

> It doesn't matter if you don't do that, if the appearance of that
> happening is
> there.  Need I mention the other awards program that is continually
> accused of
> being cliqueish, no matter the truth?  You have to avoid the
> appearance of
> making it easier for the same small groups to consistently get
> nominated and
> win.
>
> We ALL read authors and categories that are familiar to us, but if we
> publish
> the recommendations and reviews early, it might give the APPEARANCE
> we're
> trying to skew the voting toward particular authors by giving them
> more
> 'publicity'
>

> If you all want to snark back at me for bringing it up, fine. I'm
> trying to
> bring you the view from outside the little circle of your 'in-group'
> of
> administrators.
>

> My biggest problem with recommending and reviewing early (and
> nomination limits would take care of this concern as well), is that
> when one or two people nominate a lot of stories, and one or two
> reviewers vote on those stories just because that person nominated
> them, it DOES look cliqueish.  Nominating limits, and keeping
> everything on a level playing field by NOT publicizing the reviews
> avoids that.
>

> Perhaps it might give the appearance of trying to skew the voting
> toward
> particular authors by giving them more publicity, but the admins
> certainly have no
> control over who submits reviews and who doesn't. At least I assume
> they have
> no control. Not being an admin I cannot speak with absolute
> certainty, but I
> know that nobody was offering me flowers and chocolates to submit
> reviews for
> particular authors. (Or threatening me with flaming brands, either.)
> I am not
> being sarcastic. Whimsy is a result of low blood sugar, in my case.
>

> When, this year, did final reviews become visible? Was it during
> reading
> season, or did it not start until voting season? All I know is it was
> very
> motivating to see reviews coming through because it made me feel like
> a slug. I doubt
> I'd have written 100-some reviews without that motivation. I'd have
> rationalised that I was really too busy, and... and... and...
> probably just would have
> reviewed the stories I nominated.
>

> I will look towards next year with renewed hope. (Hope springs
> eternal! Read
> in the comics that today is National Cliche Day. Enough randomness.
> Back to
> the topic.) And with the winter rains closing in, at least I have a
> long list
> (about 1050 stories yet to go) of good reading. And I can always
> leave a review
> for the author, even though it no longer counts as a "vote".
>

> I've been thinking about this argument that reading the reviews
> impacted a potential reviewer's decision to read and eventually vote on
> a story.

> Perhaps this is just me not understanding how people did this,
> but did you actually read all the reviews on a story you were
> interested in, and then decide whether or not to read it?

> My adview was
> that of an admin, but I think the non-admin user didn't see a link to
> the reviews from the "browse nominations" page, did you? If so, in
> order to do this, you would have to go into the "read reviews" section,
> find the first review for the story you liked, and click on that
> story's id #.

>
> What seems much more likely is that someone would browse the
> nominations, see that a story received an interesting review, and
> decide to check it out. But remember that we can mark reviews, so
> everyone who is reading reviews all along will be seeing the most
> recent reviews, not all of them each time.

> And now a quick slight side note to this slight side note. Or more like
> a question. I can't remember - was there a link to the webpage where
> the story was hosted from the page of reviews? What I mean is, if I'm
> reading the reviews is there a simple way for me to read the story? If
> there is, we may want to not have that. I think that this may be a good
> way to send the message that people should be voting based on the story
> and not on the review.

>
> Reading the above paragraph, an interesting thought occurred to me: how
> would it affect things if the name of the reviewer was withheld until
> after the end of voting season? We're already looking at not publishing
> the names of the nominator except to the author. Assuming the presence
> of a clique (which I honestly don't believe exists)... well, if we also
> don't publicise the name of the reviewer, then no other potential
> reviewer can know that some other member of this clique reviewed a
> piece and be influenced that way. The publishing of the reviews
> wouldn't cause as many problems by unduly influencing people. It would
> then avoid even the appearance of a clique.
>
> Cheers,
> Marta

>
>
>
> Reading the above paragraph, an interesting thought occurred to me: how
> would it affect things if the name of the reviewer was withheld until
> after the end of voting season? We're already looking at not publishing
> the names of the nominator except to the author. Assuming the presence
> of a clique (which I honestly don't believe exists)... well, if we also
> don't publicise the name of the reviewer, then no other potential
> reviewer can know that some other member of this clique reviewed a
> piece and be influenced that way. The publishing of the reviews
> wouldn't cause as many problems by unduly influencing people. It would
> then avoid even the appearance of a clique.

> > What seems much more likely is that someone would browse the
> > nominations, see that a story received an interesting review, and
> > decide to check it out. But remember that we can mark reviews, so
> > everyone who is reading reviews all along will be seeing the most
> > recent reviews, not all of them each time.
>
> I didn't quite understand how this Marking of Reviews worked, so I
> never
> used that feature.
>

On 7 Nov 2005, at 21:02, C Dodd wrote:

>   As you can probably guess, I'm definitely not in favor of hiding
> reviewer
> names. There were a number of times this go round that I found a
> reviewer
> who liked stories I liked, and I used their reviews to lead me to
> other
> stories I liked. Same with nominators -- I knew nothing about the
> majority
> of the people who made nominations this year, and pretty much had no
> clue
> about who was an admin except for you and Ainae -- but I could follow
> the
> bread crumb trail left by total strangers as long as I knew their
> names.

In another email I've suggested what I think might be a compromise..
Unfortunately this is an issue where I really can see both sides of the
discussion, so I feel like I'm being wishy-washy. :-S

Anyway, my compromise will let reviewers be known as much as they were
this year. Remember that the identity of a reviewer wasn't known before
voting season this last year because *the reviews* weren't visible
before then to everyone except admins.

While I can see both sides of the debate, I'm not really comfortable
with reviewers' names being hidden completely, because of what you say
below:

> Over on lj, in the community "fanthropology", someone's just asked a
> question about fan contests, and there was a reply I'll quote here:
> "Somebody will always decide they don't like how you ran your
> competition,
> the only thing you can do is run it in a transparent enough fashion
> that any
> complaints are substantial and supportable (and can be fixed in future
> competitions) or are the obvious whines of a crackpot."

This is so true. As an admin I've worked hard to make things as
transparent as possible, and this is exactly why. As a HASA admin I saw
all sorts of problems that came from anonymous communication, and I
*really* don't want to go down that road.

Thanks for reminding me of this. I needed that reminder. I think I work
so hard at giving other peoples' opinions honest consideration that I
tend to bend too hard and not trust my gut on a lot of these issues.

Marta

> >
> > Reading the above paragraph, an interesting thought occurred to me:
> how
> > would it affect things if the name of the reviewer was withheld
> until
> > after the end of voting season? We're already looking at not
> publishing
> > the names of the nominator except to the author. Assuming the
> presence
> > of a clique (which I honestly don't believe exists)... well, if we
> also
> > don't publicise the name of the reviewer, then no other potential
> > reviewer can know that some other member of this clique reviewed a
> > piece and be influenced that way. The publishing of the reviews
> > wouldn't cause as many problems by unduly influencing people. It
> would
> > then avoid even the appearance of a clique.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marta
>
>
> I think that is a good idea. The names can show up when the Awards
> are done,
> but in the mean time you could only see the reviews. Few people have
> such a
> distinctive style while writing reviews that you can guess who it was.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marta Layton" <melayton@gmail.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new
topic?)


>
> I feel like I'm waffling on this issue. I can see both sides of this,
> but in the end I feel like I'm having a "good grief!" moment like
> RabidSamFan's. Here's a thought:
>
> 1. During Nomination Season: no reviews visible.
> 2. During Reading Season: reviews are available (put out in weekly
> batches like Anthony suggested) but no reviewers' names. The point is
> to encourage people by showing them that other people are voting, and
> to provide a model for their own reviews.
> 3. During the last month or so of voting: reviewers' names are visible.
> If you have been reviewing faithfully throughout reading season, you
> may be ready to branch out a little, and knowing that someone with
> similar interests enjoyed a story may let you do this. I seriously
> doubt that having a certain person review a piece would make another
> reviewer *not* review; on the other hand, I think that reviews may
> encourage people to branch out a bit and read pieces that they wouldn't
> have otherwise read.
>
> Does that seem more reasonable to people?

That sounds like an eminently reasonable compromise to me; in addition to
the idea of putting nominator's names in the story details instead of the
front page, should solve both the problems of transparency--the info *is*
available, just not so readily--and the problems of those who fear the names
will have too much influence, since they will not be in people's faces.

If you put that proposal in a poll, I'd vote for it.

Dreamflower
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 11/9/05, aelfwina@cableone.net <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> That sounds like an eminently reasonable compromise to me; in addition to
> the idea of putting nominator's names in the story details instead of the
> front page, should solve both the problems of transparency--the info *is*
> available, just not so readily--and the problems of those who fear the
> names
> will have too much influence, since they will not be in people's faces.
>
> If you put that proposal in a poll, I'd vote for it.
>
> Dreamflower
>


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf Of Marta Layton
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 5:55 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a
> new topic?)
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm just going to reply to this one part. It seems like the rest either
> doesn't require my opinion, or I've already given that opinion in
> another email. But thanks for writing this email. You've cleared up a
> lot of things for me.
>
> > > What seems much more likely is that someone would browse the
> > > nominations, see that a story received an interesting review, and
> > > decide to check it out. But remember that we can mark reviews, so
> > > everyone who is reading reviews all along will be seeing the most
> > > recent reviews, not all of them each time.
> >
> > I didn't quite understand how this Marking of Reviews worked, so I
> > never
> > used that feature.
> >
>
> The idea behind marking reviews was that it enabled people to onlysee
> reviews that they hadn't read before. The idea is you read a page of
> reviews, clicked the link to mark those reviews, and from that point on
> those reviews aren't shown to you again. Unless you choose to see those
> reviews that you've already marked.
>
> If you'd like me to explain how they work in more depth, please ask
> what exactly you didn't understand, and I'll do my best. :-)
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Hiding reviewers names till the last month will require disabling the
> filter
> that lets you read reviews according to who wrote them, and that means
> you'll need a mechanism that allows reviewers to look at their own
> reviews

> it wouldn't occur to most folks, and if you hide the nominators name
> on the
> "Browse Stories" list there won't be any easy way for anyone to find
> out
> whether a nominator put up more candidates worth reading. Or would that
> still work if the name was in the story details?

> About the only way you could reconcile me to hiding reviewers names
> would be to make them eligible for a search. That way you'd only see
> one
> reviewer's suggestions at a time, and it would be a pain in the lower
> regions to
> try to make comparisons.

> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>



On 11/10/05, Anthony Holder <aaholder@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2005, at 4:00 PM, C Dodd wrote:
>
> > Hiding reviewers names till the last month will require disabling the
> > filter
> > that lets you read reviews according to who wrote them, and that means
> > you'll need a mechanism that allows reviewers to look at their own
> > reviews
> <snip>
> > it wouldn't occur to most folks, and if you hide the nominators name
> > on the
> > "Browse Stories" list there won't be any easy way for anyone to find
> > out
> > whether a nominator put up more candidates worth reading. Or would that
> > still work if the name was in the story details?
>
> C,
>
> Just because I hide reviewer names doesn't mean I can't have some means
> of showing you your own reviews.

I figured you would, I just knew that we wouldn't be able to do it the same
way as this year.

It would be possible to have a 'see other reviews by this reviewer'
> without showing the name.
>
> Also, I could do a 'see other stories by this nominator' without
> showing the name.
>
> "I don't remember who" said:
> > About the only way you could reconcile me to hiding reviewers names
> > would be to make them eligible for a search. That way you'd only see
> > one
> > reviewer's suggestions at a time, and it would be a pain in the lower
> > regions to
> > try to make comparisons.
>
> Would the 'See all reviews by this reviewer' link (without showing the
> reviewer's name) be good enough?
>
> What I'm reading is that some folks don't want the nominator/reviewer
> names to be in their face, subconsciously influencing things. I guess
> the question is, if someone consciously wants to be influenced, should
> I make it possible (by including the above functionality), or should I
> make it harder?

A button to see stories from the same nominator would be bliss. In that
case you could put the name on the story details page and make it less
obvious and breadcrumb followers like me would still be happy. Same for the
"see other reviews by this reviewer". It's a wonderful compromise, although
I do think that the reviewer names should show at some point, even if it's
just at the end, for transparency reasons. (And also because there's nothing
quite like the thrill of getting a squeeful review from someone whose
opinion you really value.)

Also, for the reviewers, if I'm going to try to make it impossible to
> figure out who the reviewer is, I'll have to find some means of masking
> the reviewer's ID number from the URL.
>
> Again, are you trying to reduce unintentional influence, while allowing
> people to choose to be influenced?
>
> Or do you want to try to make it very hard to be influenced, even if
> it's what the user wants?
>
> If someone's willing to take the time to find the ID number and go to
> the user list and find out who's number 348, do you care?
>
> I would guess from my reading that you (as a group) are more worried
> about subconscious/unintentional influence.

Well, I'm in the minority on that. I think what you're calling influence
is just good advertising, using what we know about the way most folks think
to get them to go outside their usual patterns. I think someone who was
avoiding influence would be unlikely to be construing the URLs, though, so I
doubt it would be worth the effort on your part to mask the information. And
if you've got a button, why would I bother to finagle the URLs?

Also, I saw C Dodd's 'While the Ring went South' post, and I agree. I
> *want* to try to do a random sort for each user, and use that sort
> order all the time for that user next year. (I guess I'll need to make
> sure Guest gets a new sort each session.) That way, each user will
> always see stories in the same order, so she can depend on the order if
> she wants to plow through a category from top to bottom, BUT different
> stories will be at the top of different people's lists, so there won't
> be a system-wide bias.
>
> I just figured out how to do this. Use a seed for the random number
> generator. In MySQL, rand(personID*1000000+storyID) will always return
> the same number for the same personID/storyID combo, and I sort by that
> number. Each person has a unique random order, and I don't have to
> store a bunch of random order lists in the database. New stories will
> be inserted in some random place on everybody's lists, and they'll stay
> there. During nomination season, maybe I can have a 'nominated during
> the last XX days' filter, or just allow sorting by nomination date, so
> people can see just the new nominations. I can do something similar for
> authors in the author award category lists.
>
> [More geekiness -- This behavior of random number generators is
> typically considered a flaw. You'll often see them called Pseudo-random
> number generators for this reason. Most of the time, good ones start
> with a seed based on something like the time in milliseconds or
> microseconds, to help keep them from returning the same numbers over
> and over again. Sometimes, though, this behavior can be helpful, if you
> can remember that it's available. <g>]
>
> We can stop talking about randomization now, for the most part! Let's
> move on to some other random topic.

Wouldn't it be easier just to make the initial story load random and make
the Sort process more visible, so that a person who is applying filters just
applies the sort order in the same way at the same time? Folks who want a
consistent order would have it the moment they really got down to business,
but the top story on the initial load wouldn't always be the same one. If
I'm not mistaken, "guests" would still be a problem with the mathematics you
just suggested, because they'd all be the same "user". And if "random" is
the default sort order for every user, then someone like me, who likes to
see different ideas float to to the top, could filter without sorting and
feel like I didn't have to be clicking on pages at the end or the middle in
order to spread my eyeball-time around.

How about quotes?
>
> I was planning (for MEFA2005) on having <blockquote></blockquote>
> actually do the HTML, and indent the quote, but the decision was made
> not to use it, and I had to encode it, so you see the <blockquote>
> stuff, which I don't like. Too ugly. If you want to have quotes, I
> think I can come up with something else to start/end them that will
> look better as plain text, and still be clearly a quote, and not count
> toward the score.
>
> All I need is a clear string to search for that won't get used in any
> other circumstance. This is something for me to test. I could use two
> of the 'forbidden' characters, like [ and ], which would allow dialog
> quotes " to be used inside, and not mess things up.

That sounds simple and easy. It might not be, but it *sounds* that way!

I think, based on this year, that 'Easy to use' and 'with clear
> instructions' are the primary success factors, and that if we use
> something like this to offset quotes (and I figure a way to clearly
> show them in a preview of sorts, so the reviewer can know that it's
> working), then there shouldn't be any problem allowing any length
> quotes, knowing that they won't count in the score.
>
> Anthony

A preview of reviews would also give us a chance to notice misspellings
before we said "final". How about one click to the review input box, one
click to the preview, and at the bottom of the preview three choices of
which category to send the preview: "draft/notes", "tentative", or "final".
I was constantly forgetting to use the dropdown menu, and then I had to go
back and change things. And there was one draft, which wasn't meant to be a
draft, that I never did make final, darn it.


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