Yahoo Forum Archive

This is an archive of the MEFA Yahoo Group, which was shut down by Yahoo in 2019. The archive can be sorted by month and by topic ID. You can use your browser to search by keyword within the month or topic you have open.

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2004---18210426558925263362316285
20051895610753834744697276194358565136
200623166277611713912756676615979
200720257-297299143318583103
2008561335424014127477516090106
2009283-39194101722722153624
201067-14103138129321316330
20111-172625906132758
201230---812276-----
2013------------
2014---------1-2
2015------------
2016------------
2017------------
2018------------
2019---------1--

Msg# 6013

viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by sulriel November 05, 2005 - 8:24:10 Topic ID# 6013
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.

Msg# 6014

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Larian Elensar November 05, 2005 - 13:56:14 Topic ID# 6013
--- sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> 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 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.

Wow, didn't realize I'd accused anyone of chanting under the moon. Could we can
the sarcasm? I was only putting forth a concern, didn't mean to make anyone
defensive.

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.

Msg# 6020

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by C Dodd November 05, 2005 - 14:14:17 Topic ID# 6013
On 11/5/05, Larian Elensar <larian_elensar@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Actually, I'm the one who first ventured the idea that early reviews would
boost readership and I'm far from being an administrator. So I'll take the
hit on this one.
One of the bonuses of the MEFAs is that there are so many categories (and
this year, so many entries) that every reviewer had to make some choices.
But the multiplicity of categories also meant that stories didn't compete
against the entire pool of entries. In fact, the breakdown to subcategory
meant that each story only truly competed against a few other similar items.
Avoiding the appearance of cliquishness was one reason why I wanted a
comment to be mandatory -- every story would have one, and being a separate
thing from reviews would allow self-nominations to have a comment too -- but
that doesn't seem to be feasible. Seeing reviews sooner in the process --
during the reading season as well as the "voting" season -- is an idea which
I think would encourage more people to get started reading and voting
sooner, and a broader pool of readers would most likely overwhelm any
appearance of favoritism. I'm basing my desire for early reviews on my
experience as a librarian. The best publicity any book can get is
word-of-mouth from someone who has told you about another book you liked.
To me, the importance of attracting new readers and reviewers to the MEFAs
is greater than most other issues. The basic system worked pretty well this
year, and while there are tweaks I'd like, if the whole thing were the same
next year I'd be participating. But fresh readers, as well as authors, would
enhance the best aspects of what works well. And readers, like it or not,
are attracted by the kind of information that comes in the form of a review.


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

Msg# 6021

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by sulriel November 05, 2005 - 14:17:59 Topic ID# 6013
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. I consider the rampant cliquishness of this
fandom to be mean-spirited to the point of maliciousness and because
of it have withdrawn from all the usual lists and archives except the
MEFAs (and dipping my toes back in Open Scrolls).

I fully agree that it's important to keep even the appearance of
cliquishness away from the MEFAs and while I think they've done a
pretty good job, I'm open to discussion to keep that transparent.

I'm well aware of the problems with 'the other awards program' I was
eviscerated by that program last year and expect that my frank
opinion of them would get me barred even from this list.

My apology for the misunderstanding of the unintended snark is
sincere, but I will also say that I'm concerned and offended that you
accuse me of being an insider of some non-existent clique. I've
worked my tail off - in a fandom in which I'm minimally involved -
because I believe in the fairness and the worth of the MEFA awards
and the value in writing as a fullfilling hobby.

Sulriel

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Larian Elensar
<larian_elensar@y...> wrote:
>
> --- 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
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.
>
> Wow, didn't realize I'd accused anyone of chanting under the moon.
Could we can
> the sarcasm? I was only putting forth a concern, didn't mean to
make anyone
> defensive.
>
> 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.
>

Msg# 6022

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Larian November 05, 2005 - 14:28:42 Topic ID# 6013
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

It's hard to know that when just reading text, you know? So I
interpreted it incorrectly.


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



My apologies too, Sulriel. I was under the (obviously) mistaken
impression that you were an administrator since you mod this
discussion group.

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.

And I agree with what C.Dodd said, yes, the best way to get people to
read something is to provide 'publicity' for it, but the stories here
are supposed to stand on their own merit, not because Person A can
write a great review and Person B can't, so nobody reads the story
Person B reviewed.

Msg# 6023

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 05, 2005 - 14:33:43 Topic ID# 6013
--- 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

Msg# 6024

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by aelfwina@cableone.net November 05, 2005 - 15:07:46 Topic ID# 6013
There is perhaps, something to be said for the idea that a few nominators
and reviewers would have "too much" influence if the reviews were published
early. However, I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.

Nomination limits would help remove too much influence by any one person
overwhelming the list with noms. I agree that *this*could* be a
problem--limits solve that.

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.

So, no, sorry, I can't see that there is even a reason for a perception of
cliquishness with these awards. I do see the occasional misunderstanding,
and misperception of what official policy is, but that unfortunately is a
side effect of any effort that is run completely by volunteers.

The main benefit to running reviews as they are finalized *regardless* of
season is to encourage early reviewing. I was able to do as many reviews as
I did because I started early. If I had not, and had waited until voting
season, I would have only had a tiny handful of reviews, due the fact that I
was off-line for three weeks of the voting season. Truth is, if *I* had
waited until voting season started, I would have been out of luck. Of
course, I had no way of knowing that.

Certainly a story that is nominated the first day of nomination season has a
seeming advantage over one nominated the last day. But that advantage
vanishes quickly as the reading/voting season progresses.

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.

While one or two people have admitted to being *somewhat* influenced by
other reviews or by the nominator, I don't think the number of people who do
so is large enough to warrant undue concern.

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.

I am all for things that will show people what is *possible*, instead of
making unnecessary rules.

Dreamflower

Msg# 6025

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Kathy November 05, 2005 - 15:25:40 Topic ID# 6013
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Larian" <larian_elensar@y...>
wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Larian, maybe I missed something, but *was* there a perception of
cliquishness with this year's MEFAs? If so I wasn't aware of it. And
I'm certainly not in a clique myself! I didn't even know most of the
people in this group before joining this year.

> 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.

Oh, maybe you're just referring to the danger of such a perception
arising if reviews were made visible earlier in the process next
year? I think the points you're raising are good ones...but then, I
also liked the suggestion of showing reviews earlier (I feel like the
Elves, who say both yes and no, LOL!) Just to play devil's advocate,
wouldn't the objections you raise to early reviews also apply to
reviews that are visible at ANY time before the end of voting
season...i.e., they could influence voting? The only way to prevent
reviews from influencing subsequent voting would to hide all reviews
until voting is over. Would people really want to do that? 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!"

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)

Msg# 6026

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Kathy November 05, 2005 - 15:36:12 Topic ID# 6013
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, <aelfwina@c...> 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. 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.
>

This all sounds good to me...

Kathy/Inkling

Msg# 6027

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Larian November 05, 2005 - 16:57:17 Topic ID# 6013
--- 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.

Msg# 6028

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by BLJean@aol.com November 05, 2005 - 18:05:13 Topic ID# 6013
In a message dated 11/5/2005 12:31:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com writes:
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'
Ummm. Gee, I hope I don't get suspected of snarking by replying to this. That
was a joke. Probably a bad one.

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.

I know I, personally, left off reviewing until very late. I always have the
best intentions and then Life happens. But it was seeing Dreamflower's many
glowing reviews, of many different stories and different genres, that finally got
me off the stick (I hope that's the right metaphor; my blood sugar is low and
I should not even be attempting to sound like I have a brain--I should be
eating protein instead). And her with a hurricane breathing down her neck!

I'd agree, no reviews during nominating season.

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 would definitely speak against hiding all reviews until the end of voting
season. Reading reviews helped motivate me to actually *write* the things, and
I don't mean that I was simply reciprocating and writing reviews for the
stories of those people who reviewed my stories--Actually, I'm pretty sure I didn't
review every author that wrote a review for my work, simply because some of
them work in different genres than I do. (I bless their flexibility for
crossing into hobbit territory.) But it did get me started with my original plan--to
review every PG-13 and below-rated drabble, which got me reading in different
genres outside the world of hobbits, and then to review all the
"hobbit-related" stories I possibly could before I ran out of time, adding to that a few
"Fellowship" stories. With 1200 stories there was no way I could do more than
sample the Silmarillon (apologies if I spelled that wrong) or read more than one
each of Elf, Gondor, and Rohan literature. Ooo. I read two Elf stories! Go, me.

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".

All the best,
Lin
(off in search of protein)


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

Msg# 6031

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by BLJean@aol.com November 05, 2005 - 18:33:18 Topic ID# 6013
O good, I misunderstood your earlier posts, and apologise for
misunderstanding, Larian. I thought you were advocating suppressing *all* reviews until the
end of voting season, and so I was arguing against that. At least I think I
was. I really need to stop talking about protein and actually eat some.

Dizzy,
Lin
(if i could only get to the bottom of the digest i could get up from this
chair...)

In a message dated 11/5/2005 4:22:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com writes:
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.


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

Msg# 6038

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Anthony Holder November 06, 2005 - 0:34:09 Topic ID# 6013
Remember that I'm not really part of fandom (My wife, Elana, is the
real Fan), so I don't have a perspective on much of the 'cliquishness'
issues people have mentioned. I will say that having read (almost)
everything posted to the MEFAwards and MEFAStaff lists since March or
April, I've seen very little to suggest that there are favorite folks
and an 'in group'. From the staff point of view, people seem to gain
respect for their willingness to help, rather than just who they are.

How about this: Show the review, but not the reviewer, as soon as it's
final during reading season (or after a couple of weeks, to allow a
decent backlog to build up), then show the reviewer's name after voting
season is done. Essentially reading/voting season would be merged in
this case, as there would be no difference. I could even have it dump
new reviews once a week, rather than as they're done, again so there's
a bunch, rather than one at a time which might give more oomph to a
single story.

Not showing the reviewer's name allows the benefit of having the review
available, but eliminates the possibility that someone will just go
read other stories that person liked.

It seems to be the conclusion that the nominator's name could be on the
story page, but not on all the lists. I feel that the info should be
available, to keep consistency with the 'roots' of the system, where
nominations were just posts, but like 2004, I think that you should
have to go looking for the information, rather than having it shoved in
your face. (It'll reduce the page complexity and loading times, as
well, which is a good side effect.) If this discussion had happened
earlier, I would have suggested taking it off the lists this year.

I can make sure that there is no way to search or filter by nominator,
so that if someone wanted to go find the other stories that person
nominated, they'd have to go to every story page. Possible, but not
likely.

Remember that every piece of info on each page can be changed. New
stuff can be added, or existing can be removed. Also, any removals make
page loading faster. I'm not sure where that discussion belongs, and
whether it should be open discussion or not, as it could take days to
discuss the MEFA2005 User Interface. I'm sure there were things that
weren't great, but I do try to think about how many clicks and how hard
something is to do, and keep it as easy as possible. At some point,
though, I would like comments about the layout of the site, what
worked, and what was hard to use. I got many of them during the season,
but I'm sure you have more! Send them privately for now to
anthony_at_alumni dot rice . edu or add them as anonymous comments on
the MEFA2005 site
<http://gabrielle.sytes.net/MEFA2005/index.php?page=comments>. I'll
keep a list and report on it at some point, probably after PM, unless
there are things that seem to need policy decisions.

Someone's comment made me want to put an 'I'm Feeling Lucky' link on
one or more pages which would take you to a random story's page. That
person commented that they hate surprises, but some folks might like
it. It's on my ToDo list. I can't see how it would hurt, but if I don't
have time, it won't be a problem to skip it.

Another thing I added to my list is some way to randomize the stories
that show up before you apply filters. This should be pretty easy, and
would change each time you load the page.

I could also randomize the order in each category, but I figure that
having the order change every time you load a page would be insane,
unless I could figure out a way of storing a different sort order for
each user. I need to look into how to use cookies. Unfortunately, not
the peanut-butter pecan variety. <g>

Sulriel, I don't think that the sort order varied. I'm pretty sure
everybody saw the same defaults. I'll look into it, but I'm not sure I
can do much about the category lists, unless I can figure out the
cookies. I think storing it in the database would be too much for the
db to handle. As it is, the marking stuff for which reviews you've read
is two separate tables for each user, and I don't like that. I need to
see if I can do cookies for that as well.

Anthony

Msg# 6042

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by aelfwina@cableone.net November 06, 2005 - 4:46:15 Topic ID# 6013
----- 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

Msg# 6061

Re: Post Mortem Topic #2: Types of Reviews (reply to Sulriel) Posted by Marta Layton November 06, 2005 - 10:41:55 Topic ID# 6013
Hi sulriel,

>
> 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 know a few people (myself included) used draft reviews to mark
stories that we didn't want to see anymore. Using the filter option to
display stories which I had not reviewed, I could use this option to
display only those stories I was still interested in reviewing but
hadn't. I know this isn't the intended purpose of the draft review, but
in my mind it's the best one. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to
go to the trouble of entering a review not to have it count for
something. This is what muddies the waters, not tentative, in my mind.
And it creates a problem where the reviewer meant to enter tentative or
final but forgot to change the status.

So here are my suggestions. Granted they're pretty sweeping.

1. Do away with reading season. Have one long voting season all the way
from the end of check ballot season to the last day of voting. It would
be as long as reading season and voting season now (possibly longer),
but we'd call it one name to avoid confusion.

2. Do away with draft reviews. If it is feasible, maybe we can
incorporate some way to Hide certain reviews under the "display
nominations not reviewed" filter. I'll email Anthony privately to see
if this is possible.

3. Change the name "tentative" to "hidden". These reviews are only
visible after the last day of voting, and all hidden reviews are
counted toward vote totals.
I also recommend we assign them a date when they're cast, not at the
end of nomination season if this is technically possible. (This is to
keep from displaying all the tentative/hidden reviews after those
reviews initially cast as final/visible. Again, this is something I'll
have to clear with Anthony.)

4. Change the name "final" to "visible". Display these reviews any
point past the beginning of voting season (i.e., after check ballot
season). All of these votes

5. Make it possible for the reviewer to edit his or her vote at any
point before the end of voting season. Even visible reviews, which are
visible at any point during 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.
>

Somehow I've missed these concerns. Can someone summarise them for me?

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

Not knowing the above reasons, I can't comment whether it's off-set or
not. But I do think it's helpful to the reviewer to see how other
people have reviewed. Not necessarily for the story they want to review
- I have heard from several people who have said they were hesitatnt to
review until they could have a model in a review set by someone else.
Anything that gets people reviewing earlier also gets them reviewing
more stories overall, so I think I'm in favor of this.

> 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 think I see what you mean. You aren't reviewing because the person is
your friend, but because you know in the past you have enjoyed what
this person enjoys. I don't think that's necessarily cliquish - it's
making good use of your limited reviewing time. I'm a stickler for
grammar and have a very hard time enjoying a story full of misplaced
commas. It makes sense that I might look at stories that I might look
first to stories that I know people with the same issue also enjoyed.

> 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.

Cheers,
Marta
*****
Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words. - St. Francis
of Assisi

Msg# 6075

Re: Post Mortem Topic #2: Types of Reviews (reply to Sulriel) Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 06, 2005 - 13:55:41 Topic ID# 6013
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:

> 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.

I liked that a lot! It surely contributed to the 'feel good feeling'
and it had a positive effect on me overall. So, for me with the
reviews and how they appeared: I like how it went this year and I
don't see the need to change it.

But reading and voting season actually do begin at the same time: that
is very confusing. Voting does begin at the moment people can write
reviews, so I would leave out that completely (maybe something of last
year?). I know it took me a while to figure that one out.

So more explanantions, help fields appearing.. I am all for 'user'
education, instead of making more rules. The contact you have with a
participant, taking the time for it, to sit down... from my experience
I know that this works better then keep on changing things. You can't
make everyone happy, it would be very nice if we tried, but the
payback and feeling of making this happening together... that can be a
strength of the MEFA's as well.

Rhapsody

Msg# 6098

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 06, 2005 - 22:19:57 Topic ID# 6013
On 5 Nov 2005, at 16:25, Kathy wrote:

> 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...
>

First, I think it's important not to get too discouraged by the low
percentage of [MEFAwards] members who are active. People have a
tendency to lurk on lists and even forget that they're members if they
switch from individual mail or digest to no mail without unsubscribing.
I think this is especially true in situations where membership in a
listserv is required for some other things. I know that [Henneth_Annun]
received a lot of members who wanted to join
http://www.henneth-annun.net/ , and only a small fraction of those only
became active on the Yahoo list. And even the % of MEFA2005 members who
actually vote isn't so bad when you consider the commitment required.

That said, I'm all for anything that will increase participation. In my
experience, the best way to get and keep people involved is a
one-to-one connection. If you are involved but know someone who isn't,
encourage them to join up and offer to be their first contact if they
have any questions. If your friend asks a question that you don't know,
feel free to pass it on to mefasupport @ gmail.com and the admins will
get you the information you need.

Another way is by promoting the MEFAs in the groups where you are
involved. The Tolkien fandom is a diverse place and while we try to
advertise these awards in as many places as possible, we have limited
time. Besides announcements work better if the person making the
announcement is otherwise involved in the community. If no one is
making MEFA-related announcements in a community you spend time and
you're interested in doing this, *please* let us know. It's often a
matter of sending less than a dozen emails over the course of a year -
and those emails are usually written, so you just have to post them.

A third idea that we (the admins) toyed with this year were voters'
awards. We ultimately decided that awarding places and honourable
mentions to the most prolific reviewers across all the categories would
be too competitive. A second idea that I can't remember if we ever even
discussed is *levels* of recognition. All authros who cast X points or
X reviews or whatever get to use one banner. All the authors who reach
the next threshold get to use a second banner. Etc.

I honestly don't know whether that idea would work, or what did. If
anyone has ideas I'm more than willing to hear them.

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)

Msg# 6099

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 06, 2005 - 22:20:01 Topic ID# 6013
> 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.
>

Well, there's the Mithrils of course. They cover all of that in theory.
(I suppose one could make an argument that they are still
over-represented in some areas and under-represented in others, but
this really isn't the place to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of
another award. Note that I'm not saying this is actually the case, but
that it's theoretically possible to make that argument.) I suppose you
could say that in categories like "Hobbits" or "The Silmarillion" it
would be possible for a clique to control the results of that
particular category, but not the others.

And remember that the clique is only effective if others don't vote. If
you want to bust a certain group's perceived influence over the
outcome, the easiest and best way to do so is to vote for as many
pieces as possible and encourage others to do the same.

Slight side note...

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. Then it's the stories that
receive the most recent nominations, not necessarily those who receive
the most or earliest that will receive this advantage (and I don't
think the advantage exists in the case of every reader.

Let me be a bit frank here. If there is an advantage to be had from
other potential reviewers seeing your review of a certain piece, then
by holding off on releasing nominations until the fall we're denying
some nominations equal access to this advantage. Because when there are
500 reviews that have been accumulating over several months, I think
most people will pay less attention to each one - and certainly won't
take the time to stop and read the story - than if there were only 50
reviews that you haven't read before. My point is that *nothing* will
ever be 100% fair, and by bending over to make it so we'll miss a lot
of good changes whose value outweighs any unfairness.

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.

> 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.
>

Dreamflower, I said in another email that the email sent to the author
this year included the nominator, and I don't have any problem with
including this information again next year. Do you think that's
sufficient? Or should the nominator also be visible to the author
somewhere on the site? That could be more tricksy.

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)

Msg# 6102

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 06, 2005 - 22:20:13 Topic ID# 6013
Hi Larian,

> 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'
>

Can you clarify something for me? What is it about the current system
that is so less cliquish (or appears to be so much less cliquish) than
publishing reviews a few months earlier. It seems that the current
system is the worst of both worlds. If we want to avoid the ills of
having some peoples' opinions affect others, then we shouldn't be
publishing reviews at all until voting system. If on the other hand the
benefit of having reviews available outweighs the harm, then releasing
them earlier will help those benefits of having the reviews out there
have more of an effect.

> 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.
>

First, what in-group? I can honestly say that I didn't know any of the
admins outside of the MEFAs. I didn't know them beforehand, and now I
don't know anything beyond what they write (which I read because I
recognise their names) and what I've learned about them through working
side by side. I wouldn't name any of them great friends -- nothing
against the other admins, I'm not saying they *couldn't* be, but we
really are just running a fandom awards. We come from all orners of the
fandom; some are probably a little better represented because of who
has the time to volunteer, but it's not like we're all active one place
and nowhere else.

One of the key factors of a in-group to me is that it's a "closed"
membership - you can't easily be associated with it if the group
doesn't want you. But if someone wants to be a part of this "in-group"
all you have to do is volunteer. We haven't turned anyone down to my
knowledge. And if you're volunteering for some benefit of more power or
whatever, you'll probably be disappointed. Most of the decisions are
made here in this post-mortem, where *anyone* who is willing to sign up
for a Yahoo membership is free to join in.

As for snarking, I didn't hear that. Maybe I read Sulriel's comments
differently somehow. I'm sorry if you were offended; I think it was
more a case of her trying to make a small joke and humour not crossing
the net well.

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)

Msg# 6105

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 06, 2005 - 22:22:08 Topic ID# 6013
> 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.
>

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

*****
"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)

Msg# 6106

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 06, 2005 - 22:22:54 Topic ID# 6013
Hi Lindelea,

> 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.
>

To affirm what Lindelea was saying: there's no conspiracy among the
admins to make sure that our favourite writer wins. No admins are being
required to vote earlier as part of their doing, nor is anyone (to my
knowledge) being specifically asked to do this. Maybe one-on-one with a
friend I've reminded the person that voting early really is necessary
if you want to vote for a lot of stories. But that's only because we
were chatting and I was working on my own reviews.

Heck, even if the admins wanted to "encourage" a certain result, we are
too diverse a group to agree on what that result should be! And even if
we weren't, we're simply too busy working our butts off to worry about
gaming the system.

<snip>
> 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.
>

Final reviews were first visible at the beginning of voting season
(when was that... beginning of August, maybe? Can't remember exactly.)
If they weren't cast until after that point they were made visible
immediately. Tentative or draft reviews that were changed to "final"
status during voting season were likewise visible as soon as their
status was changed to final.

> 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".
>

That you can. For my stories... even if it doesn't count as a vote, it
still counts as feedback, and that's the lembas and miruvuor us writers
live on. :-)

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)

Msg# 6121

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Chris Grzonka November 07, 2005 - 18:40:58 Topic ID# 6013
> 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.

Reading Reviews never decided me to vote on a story. But sometimes the
summary was too short for me to decide whether I wanted to spend time on a
story. So, by reading the review, I was hoping to know a bit more about a
story before committing time.

> 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?

No, more often than not I avoided the review until I was ready to write my
review, unless, see above. Mostly I would read one or maybe two reviews but
not all, just to get a feeling whether other people saw the same in a story
or not.

> 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 #.

I forgot how I did it. But in the Browse Stories section, during voting
season, there was a Review column with a link. Clicking on that link gave
you access to the Reviews.

>
> 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.

> 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.

I think clicking on the link for the Reviews opened a new browser window.
But no matter what you do it is very easy to go between review page and
story page. There is always the possibility to use Open Link in New Window.

Chris

Msg# 6122

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Chris Grzonka November 07, 2005 - 18:45:40 Topic ID# 6013
>
> 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.

Chris

Msg# 6123

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by C Dodd November 07, 2005 - 20:02:46 Topic ID# 6013
On 11/6/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.

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.
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."
To me, transparency is the key to refuting charges of favoritism. Losing it
for the sake of a theoretical controversy wouldn't help anything and might
actually increase the chances that the awards would be embroiled in a mess.
The discussion on LJ is here, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/fanthropology/158524.html
a couple of the commenters have already linked to discussions about other
awards.


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

Msg# 6184

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 10:15:32 Topic ID# 6013
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)

Msg# 6185

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 10:15:35 Topic ID# 6013
Hi Rabidsamfan,

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

Msg# 6186

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 10:19:37 Topic ID# 6013
On 7 Nov 2005, at 19:37, Chris Grzonka wrote:

> >
> > 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.
>

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?

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)

Msg# 6189

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by aelfwina@cableone.net November 09, 2005 - 15:37:43 Topic ID# 6013
----- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6191

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by C Dodd November 09, 2005 - 16:00:31 Topic ID# 6013
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
when they want to nudge braincells about something they read a while ago.
Yes, we could filter for stories and then click the review box on each and
every one, but it's not as user friendly as being able to call up all the
reviews and use the "find" function to look for a word you remember using.
Incidentally, using the "find" function was the only way to see who had
nominated things with any kind of ease *this* year. Yes, it occured to a
person like me who has to search texts for information on a daily basis, but
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?

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]

Msg# 6195

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Chris Grzonka November 09, 2005 - 18:25:23 Topic ID# 6013
Okay, now I get it. But I was not that interested in reviews, so I didn't
check them out very often.

Thanks,

Chris

> -----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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6224

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by Anthony Holder November 10, 2005 - 2:28:05 Topic ID# 6013
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Msg# 6227

Re: viewing reviews (Marta - should this be a new topic?) Posted by C Dodd November 10, 2005 - 7:50:20 Topic ID# 6013
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.


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.

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


> ------------------------------
> 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]