Yahoo Forum Archive

-- <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:

>> 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.

Can I add something here that I didn't communicate very well? (I'll blame sleeplessness, if anyone wants an excuse.) I think I'm among those who freely admitted to being "somewhat" influenced by nominators, but I'd like to stress the fact that this influence only came into effect when I was under time constraints. I suspect it's the same for everyone. When pressed for time, we fall back on our preferences. One way I stick to my preferences is following the trail of those nominators who share my likes and dislikes. You can certainly call that cliquish if you want, but I'm not sure there's any way to avoid it. And I don't think it kept me from getting out a decent number of reviews.

It's kind of like a hobbit fan seeking out hobbit stories. Is that wrong? I don't think so. And in the same vein, some of us follow style and theme. That's more difficult to determine based on summaries, though, because theme and style is something developed over the course of a story. But there *are* people out there who like the same styles and themes that I do, which means that if they enjoyed a story, I will probably enjoy it, too, regardless of whether it features my favorite characters or races. So the hobbit fan enjoys hobbit stories that include humor, drama, action, etc. In the meantime, the style and theme fan enjoys stories that have elves, hobbits, First Age, Modern Day, etc. Same idea, different focus. Neither is better than the other; they're simply different ways of judging stories.

>> 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.

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.

Thundera

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

-- <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:

>> 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.

The sleeplessness is cropping up again. (That happens after 72 hours with 50+ hyped-up teenagers.) Let me see if I can clarify the concern:

During the awards this year, AFTER reading season had ended and voting season had begun, there were a number of stories with final reviews. There were also a number of stories with tentative reviews but no final reviews. A sizeable portion of this latter group was comprised of newer authors who were afraid their stories had gone unnoticed because other stories had visible final reviews and they didn't. There was no way for them to see that their stories had tentative reviews, so they assumed that they had no reviews whatsoever. This will probably happen again next year, but if we make it possible to see final reviews from the very beginning, it will be a problem that persists for four months rather than just two. We've doubled the time that newer authors with unseen tentative reviews worry about no one reading their stories while stories of more prominent authors accumulate final reviews.

As with the nominators, I don't see this as a BIG problem, so I don't want to blow it out of proportion. But it is a concern. Older, more established authors tend to be easier to review because we've either left reviews for them in the past or we know them well enough that the words come easier. Those reviews are also easier to finalize, so they're sometimes the ones that pop up on the website first. A new author, while a blessed find, is not as easy to review because the work is less familiar and we don't have a rapport with the writer. Those are the reviews that tend to be finalized a little bit later than the others. And while some new authors can handle a longer wait to see if they've been reviewed, some aren't as confident as that.

So going back to Dreamflower's point, yes. Reviews would appear sooner, not later. But that's only final reviews. And the first batch of final reviews that I saw had a larger portion of familiar, established writers in them. Some newer authors were definitely present, but by and large, final reviews for them started coming later. Not sooner. So I'm concerned that the authors sitting around waiting for final reviews are going to go through the same thing that a few went through this time around except that we're going to make their wait period longer. Personally, I like what happened this year. I'm really not in favor of changing it.

Thundera

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

Okay, here's my take on this. According to what I read in emails sent around
during voting, tentative reviews were used by some folks to filter out
stories that they weren't interested in reading, yes? So putting up a number
of "tentative" reviews would be like offering candy to the authors and then
snatching it away just before Halloween.
Is it possible for there to be a "hold aside" which reviewers could use to
identify the stories which they didn't mean to review or didn't want to deal
with while they were filtering for other things? Or could we strongly
encourage people to only use the "draft" reviews that way? That would mean
that tentative reviews could be used by reviewers who were going through a
category and wanted to make sure that the story they liked best was the one
which they gave the most votes, or to give themselves the chance to reread a
review by daylight and correct misspellings etc. before making it final. And
as a bonus, the number of tentative reviews could be revealed without also
showing the reviews themselves.
Alternately, having final reviews appear earlier might encourage reviewers
to finalize their reviews sooner, say after finishing reading through a
category instead of waiting for everything to show up later. I know that I
didn't bother to finalize a number of things until after I could see that it
would be worth the effort -- i.e., when making a review final would make it
appear. I wasn't quite sure why there were three categories of reviews
possible until I'd worked with them for a good long while, and I almost
never used the "draft" category once I'd figured out that "tentative" served
my purposes better.
Even for folks who are readers and not authors, I think early reviews have
some benefits. For one thing, it's nice to see your hard work out there all
shiny if you've been writing reviews, and for another, it's nice to have
models of reviews from experienced reviewers to go by when you start writing
your own.
I also think, although I can't be sure, that the site got much heavier
usage once reviews began to appear. I know I had more trouble getting in
more often. Does anyone have the stats? Spreading the visible review period
might ease site congestion, although not in the final week when we were all
rushing.

On 11/6/05, Laura <thunderalaura@juno.com> wrote:
>
> -- <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> The sleeplessness is cropping up again. (That happens after 72 hours with
> 50+ hyped-up teenagers.) Let me see if I can clarify the concern:
>
> During the awards this year, AFTER reading season had ended and voting
> season had begun, there were a number of stories with final reviews. There
> were also a number of stories with tentative reviews but no final reviews. A
> sizeable portion of this latter group was comprised of newer authors who
> were afraid their stories had gone unnoticed because other stories had
> visible final reviews and they didn't. There was no way for them to see that
> their stories had tentative reviews, so they assumed that they had no
> reviews whatsoever. This will probably happen again next year, but if we
> make it possible to see final reviews from the very beginning, it will be a
> problem that persists for four months rather than just two. We've doubled
> the time that newer authors with unseen tentative reviews worry about no one
> reading their stories while stories of more prominent authors accumulate
> final reviews.
>
> As with the nominators, I don't see this as a BIG problem, so I don't want
> to blow it out of proportion. But it is a concern. Older, more established
> authors tend to be easier to review because we've either left reviews for
> them in the past or we know them well enough that the words come easier.
> Those reviews are also easier to finalize, so they're sometimes the ones
> that pop up on the website first. A new author, while a blessed find, is not
> as easy to review because the work is less familiar and we don't have a
> rapport with the writer. Those are the reviews that tend to be finalized a
> little bit later than the others. And while some new authors can handle a
> longer wait to see if they've been reviewed, some aren't as confident as
> that.
>
> So going back to Dreamflower's point, yes. Reviews would appear sooner,
> not later. But that's only final reviews. And the first batch of final
> reviews that I saw had a larger portion of familiar, established writers in
> them. Some newer authors were definitely present, but by and large, final
> reviews for them started coming later. Not sooner. So I'm concerned that the
> authors sitting around waiting for final reviews are going to go through the
> same thing that a few went through this time around except that we're going
> to make their wait period longer. Personally, I like what happened this
> year. I'm really not in favor of changing it.
>
> Thundera
>
>


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

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com,


what if we simply change the name of the draft reviews to "reviewers
notes to self"?

I didn't have the brainpower to figure out how to use them like some
did, but it certainly would have saved a lot of re-clicking and
unclicking if I could have used the "stories I haven't reviewed"
filter. - there are some subjects that I simply won't read, no matter
how well written, for various personal reasons, and especially toward
the end, it would have helped me to more easily find those that I
hadn't looked at yet.

in regards to tentative and final. - I'm not sure that I like hidden
and visible better, because the hidden ones will become visible at a
certain date. what about incomplete and complete, or in-progress and
final. - I think that draft and final would be more appropriate but
wouldn't want to confuse that with the draft reviews of 05 that were
never finalized.

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com,

someone mentioned the anxiety caused by tentative reviews, authors
wondering how many, if any, might be 'out there', but I'm not easily
finding those lines in the previous posts ...

I have to second this. It's a real and painful concern. I also
fielded somewhat traumatized mails from various authors, and
understand from private discussion that it was apparently somewhat
widespread.

so which is better? the possibility of hidden reviews being
collected in a long agony of hope - or the cold stark reality of
seeing that number and knowing that is the number. Personally, I
prefer cold and stark. I won't argue either way, but I think it's
something that needs to be discussed. I can certainly understand how
crushing emotion can can be, hope, loss of hope. -the assumptions
that are made due to lack of reivews - ... It doesn't take that much
to throw off my writing for periods and I am fairly thick-skinned. -
(ok .. <ahem> I have a rhino-hide.) Many of our authors are young
and/or fragile and I hate to think of the possibilities of those that
are being lost to the fandom instead of nurtured, but that's a
whole 'nuther discussion that doesn't really belong here.

Even if all reviews are finalized and viewable as they are posted,
there is always 'tomorrow' and the hope that your story is on
someone's list, and new reviews can be posted as late as the literal
last minute. - so there is always anticipation and hope for the
authors.

I think that if the final reviews are going to be editable, we only
need the one option. (plus the note to self comment/check-box or
whatever) - but I don't really agree with that. I think final should
be final and move on. I think we're all guily of endless tweaking,
and doing so with the reviews is likely to keep the reviewer from
moving forward with new reviews.

Sulriel

I like final being final. Having a tentative category did let me fix a
couple of glaring errors before they went public, but once I'd marked a
review final I had to live with it, and that just sent me on to the next
story. Those two I'd keep the same, really, I just know I'd finalize things
a lot faster if it mattered because they'd show up. Having a number for
tentative reviews would reassure me as an author that they were "out there",
and I'd probably just assume that the reviewer was reading other stories in
the category or waiting for a calmer moment to adjust their phrasing.
No matter how hard we try, unless we make the nominators review up front
and no one likes that idea but me, some stories are going to get reviewed
later than other stories. The best we can do is encourage folks to "vote
early and often!"

On 11/6/05, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com,
>
> someone mentioned the anxiety caused by tentative reviews, authors
> wondering how many, if any, might be 'out there', but I'm not easily
> finding those lines in the previous posts ...
>
> I have to second this. It's a real and painful concern. I also
> fielded somewhat traumatized mails from various authors, and
> understand from private discussion that it was apparently somewhat
> widespread.
>
> so which is better? the possibility of hidden reviews being
> collected in a long agony of hope - or the cold stark reality of
> seeing that number and knowing that is the number. Personally, I
> prefer cold and stark. I won't argue either way, but I think it's
> something that needs to be discussed. I can certainly understand how
> crushing emotion can can be, hope, loss of hope. -the assumptions
> that are made due to lack of reivews - ... It doesn't take that much
> to throw off my writing for periods and I am fairly thick-skinned. -
> (ok .. <ahem> I have a rhino-hide.) Many of our authors are young
> and/or fragile and I hate to think of the possibilities of those that
> are being lost to the fandom instead of nurtured, but that's a
> whole 'nuther discussion that doesn't really belong here.
>
> Even if all reviews are finalized and viewable as they are posted,
> there is always 'tomorrow' and the hope that your story is on
> someone's list, and new reviews can be posted as late as the literal
> last minute. - so there is always anticipation and hope for the
> authors.
>
> I think that if the final reviews are going to be editable, we only
> need the one option. (plus the note to self comment/check-box or
> whatever) - but I don't really agree with that. I think final should
> be final and move on. I think we're all guily of endless tweaking,
> and doing so with the reviews is likely to keep the reviewer from
> moving forward with new reviews.
>
> Sulriel
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Business writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=S1VR1VlMwudCExyBuuM8KQ> Writing
> book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=ZNzhL5tkYTnFn6e6dZzsVg> Creative
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Creative+writing+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=B6TA4cKmbN8ELbehU4Ha9Q> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Business+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=CFK62BYognVZ8so-O02uUg>
> ------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


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

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com,
>
>
> what if we simply change the name of the draft reviews to "reviewers
> notes to self"?

I kept track of that in an excel file. Just story id, title of the
story, category and what the status of the review was.

Rhapsody

I've read through till now.

Most of the things you all have mentioned are feasible, and not too
difficult.

I've added several things to my ToDo list, from these emails. At some
point, I'll have to summarize, but probably not until the end of PM.
That way, I will let you all know what I heard, and you can tell me if
I'm correct.

I'm expecting it to be a pretty long list. It is possible that some
things on the list won't happen, but since I think most of the changes
will be fairly cosmetic, I am not too concerned with it being too much
time.

Anthony

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:

>
> so which is better? the possibility of hidden reviews being
> collected in a long agony of hope - or the cold stark reality of
> seeing that number and knowing that is the number. Personally, I
> prefer cold and stark. I won't argue either way, but I think it's
> something that needs to be discussed.
>
> <snip>
>
> I think that if the final reviews are going to be editable, we only
> need the one option. (plus the note to self comment/check-box or
> whatever) - but I don't really agree with that. I think final
> should
> be final and move on. I think we're all guily of endless tweaking,
> and doing so with the reviews is likely to keep the reviewer from
> moving forward with new reviews.

I heartily agree. I don't understand the need for "hidden"
and "visible" reviews--whatever they may be called. When I posted a
review, that was that: I marked them all final. Concern about typos,
etc. can be addressed by making reviews editable throughout voting
season, as Sulriel points out. My own solution to that this year was
to compose all of my reviews in Word, and that's where I would edit,
spell-check, etc.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that all reviews be made visible
from the moment they are posted, if that happens during nomination
season. I agree with those who have said that's too early for reviews
to start appearing. But I just don't see the need for the three-tier
system (draft, tentative, final). I'd propose that any reviews posted
during nomination season appear en masse at the start of reading
season, or reading-voting season, or whatever we end up with, and any
reviews posted thereafter be immediately visible. Or revealed in
weekly batches, as Anthony suggested. This would certainly alleviate
the concern Laura raised, that nervous new authors would be
discouraged at seeing no reviews for their stories...

(Sorry Marta, I'm afraid we've all gotten way off the official topic:
how to limit nominations!)

Kathy (Inkling)

Actually, once I'd read a bit I understood the "tentative" part -- although
it didn't change my reviews much. But in a couple of instances there were
stories in the same subcategory where I definitely wanted my "vote" to swing
toward one more than the other, so adding a sentence or two made the
difference. As an author, hoping for reviews, I'd be pretty devastated to
find that someone had gone in and made changes that lowered my score once it
had appeared. Once a review is visible, it should only be able to be edited
by the admins, either at the request of the reviewer or to help it conform
to known rules.

On 11/6/05, Kathy <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> >
> > so which is better? the possibility of hidden reviews being
> > collected in a long agony of hope - or the cold stark reality of
> > seeing that number and knowing that is the number. Personally, I
> > prefer cold and stark. I won't argue either way, but I think it's
> > something that needs to be discussed.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I think that if the final reviews are going to be editable, we only
> > need the one option. (plus the note to self comment/check-box or
> > whatever) - but I don't really agree with that. I think final
> > should
> > be final and move on. I think we're all guily of endless tweaking,
> > and doing so with the reviews is likely to keep the reviewer from
> > moving forward with new reviews.
>
> I heartily agree. I don't understand the need for "hidden"
> and "visible" reviews--whatever they may be called. When I posted a
> review, that was that: I marked them all final. Concern about typos,
> etc. can be addressed by making reviews editable throughout voting
> season, as Sulriel points out. My own solution to that this year was
> to compose all of my reviews in Word, and that's where I would edit,
> spell-check, etc.
>
> Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that all reviews be made visible
> from the moment they are posted, if that happens during nomination
> season. I agree with those who have said that's too early for reviews
> to start appearing. But I just don't see the need for the three-tier
> system (draft, tentative, final). I'd propose that any reviews posted
> during nomination season appear en masse at the start of reading
> season, or reading-voting season, or whatever we end up with, and any
> reviews posted thereafter be immediately visible. Or revealed in
> weekly batches, as Anthony suggested. This would certainly alleviate
> the concern Laura raised, that nervous new authors would be
> discouraged at seeing no reviews for their stories...
>
> (Sorry Marta, I'm afraid we've all gotten way off the official topic:
> how to limit nominations!)
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Creative writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Creative+writing+book&w1=Creative+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Business+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=kxfsQsWS1hEMfwBTFLcq2A> Writing
> book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Creative+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Business+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=S9S61iRTicZR8V2XKKsaKQ> Business
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Creative+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Business+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=eY-BkrypQkSSf2Fe3drKkw> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Creative+writing+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Business+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&c=4&s=96&.sig=aUf58z2r7K_6pWkB1BRH9Q>
> ------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


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

Hmm, I see your point. I hadn't thought of that as I didn't vote that
way myself...I just figured my opinion is what it is, and let the
chips--and the scores--fall where they may. But I agree, it would be
pretty unpleasant for an author to see a review score fall after the
original post. So maybe the editable feature isn't such a good idea.
But I'm still not crazy about hidden reviews...

Kathy (Inkling)

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
>
> Actually, once I'd read a bit I understood the "tentative" part --
> although
> it didn't change my reviews much. But in a couple of instances
> there were
> stories in the same subcategory where I definitely wanted my "vote"
> to swing
> toward one more than the other, so adding a sentence or two made the
> difference. As an author, hoping for reviews, I'd be pretty
> devastated to
> find that someone had gone in and made changes that lowered my
> score once it
> had appeared. Once a review is visible, it should only be able to
> be edited
> by the admins, either at the request of the reviewer or to help it
> conform
> to known rules.
> On 11/6/05, Kathy <inkling-tcbs@s...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > so which is better? the possibility of hidden reviews being
> > > collected in a long agony of hope - or the cold stark reality of
> > > seeing that number and knowing that is the number. Personally, I
> > > prefer cold and stark. I won't argue either way, but I think
> > > it's
> > > something that needs to be discussed.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > I think that if the final reviews are going to be editable, we
> > > only
> > > need the one option. (plus the note to self comment/check-box or
> > > whatever) - but I don't really agree with that. I think final
> > > should
> > > be final and move on. I think we're all guily of endless
> > > tweaking,
> > > and doing so with the reviews is likely to keep the reviewer
> > > from
> > > moving forward with new reviews.
> >
> > I heartily agree. I don't understand the need for "hidden"
> > and "visible" reviews--whatever they may be called. When I posted
> > a
> > review, that was that: I marked them all final. Concern about
> > typos,
> > etc. can be addressed by making reviews editable throughout voting
> > season, as Sulriel points out. My own solution to that this year
> > was
> > to compose all of my reviews in Word, and that's where I would
> > edit,
> > spell-check, etc.
> >
> > Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that all reviews be made
> > visible
> > from the moment they are posted, if that happens during nomination
> > season. I agree with those who have said that's too early for
> > reviews
> > to start appearing. But I just don't see the need for the three-
> > tier
> > system (draft, tentative, final). I'd propose that any reviews
> > posted
> > during nomination season appear en masse at the start of reading
> > season, or reading-voting season, or whatever we end up with, and
> > any
> > reviews posted thereafter be immediately visible. Or revealed in
> > weekly batches, as Anthony suggested. This would certainly
> > alleviate
> > the concern Laura raised, that nervous new authors would be
> > discouraged at seeing no reviews for their stories...
> >
> > (Sorry Marta, I'm afraid we've all gotten way off the official
> > topic:
> > how to limit nominations!)
> >
> > Kathy (Inkling)

I disagree with taking away the option of making reviews not
immediately visible. I left the vast majority of my reviews tentative
because I also had stories running and I did not want to review
someone (especially someone I knew) and then have them feel
obligated/pressured to review me in return.

I also, in many cases, left a review that was more of an outline and
then came back and fleshed it out if I had time later. That way I got
to most everyone I wanted to review and then went back and did
something more detailed later. I would feel strange if the person saw
my original review and then later saw my more complete one.

And I don't want to keep track of a word doc with all my tentative
reviews. What if I lose that doc or don't get them copy/pasted in
time. But putting them in the database as tentative, at least I knew
some vote was present.

I very much hope we keep some type of visible/hidden option.

Well, knowing that there were reviews, even if they were hidden, would be a
little like knowing that the present under the tree has your name on it,
even if you can't hear anything when you shake it. It's a tension, but it's
a pleasant sort of tension. Especially since reviewers don't have any
incentive to leave negative reviews in this framework. Whatever's in there,
you know it isn't more underwear from Auntie.

On 11/6/05, Kathy <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Hmm, I see your point. I hadn't thought of that as I didn't vote that
> way myself...I just figured my opinion is what it is, and let the
> chips--and the scores--fall where they may. But I agree, it would be
> pretty unpleasant for an author to see a review score fall after the
> original post. So maybe the editable feature isn't such a good idea.
> But I'm still not crazy about hidden reviews...
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>


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

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...> wrote:

>
> Hmm, I see your point. I hadn't thought of that as I didn't vote that
> way myself...I just figured my opinion is what it is, and let the
> chips--and the scores--fall where they may. But I agree, it would be
> pretty unpleasant for an author to see a review score fall after the
> original post. So maybe the editable feature isn't such a good idea.
> But I'm still not crazy about hidden reviews...

Well, should it happen that the majority go with having final reviews
visible no matter what "season" it may be, it seems to me that it
should be easy enough to hide the scores.

Remember: when reviews first went public at the beginning of voting
season, the *only* scores you could see were for reviews you had left.
A little nip and tuck here and there, a cleaner turn of phrase, maybe
a slight addition or subtraction is unlikely to be noticed and
*counted* unless the author is putting each and every review through a
char count program.

Not to say that even the qualitative changes might not cause anxiety,
but I think we need not be anxious about the number-crunching types
immediately, not unless they're fanatics about it.

Dwim

>But I just don't see the need for the three-tier
> system (draft, tentative, final). I'd propose that any reviews posted
> during nomination season appear en masse at the start of reading
> season, or reading-voting season, or whatever we end up with, and any
> reviews posted thereafter be immediately visible.

This is a plea for retaining at least a two-tier, visible/invisible
review system.

Personally, I didn't use tentative reviews very often and I didn't use
them for their intended purpose. For fics where I found the style
appealing or very well done but had issues with content, I sometimes
used tentative status, because I might have forgotten to go back to
them before voting season ended to see whether I had any second
thoughts about how or whether to review. Seeing them attached to all
my other ballots was a constant reminder to try to return to those
stories before the end, but storing those reviews as tentative also
meant that I'd probably end up helping the fic rather than not,
whether or not I had time or inclination to revisit those stories. It
made sure that I was most likely to vote rather than not, so for those
few stories where I felt conflicted, tentative status was a tip of the
scale in their favor.

Another use I found for tentative status was for large stories (like
"Adraefan") that I read over a number of days. I wrote a preliminary
review up to the point of my first major reading break, saying in
general what I had liked so far. And then as I got further along in
the story, I revised, updated, and otherwise amended my tentative
review to reflect were I was in the fic and what I thought was most
important to mention. I had that review stored on the site as a
tentative review because I was worried I might not finish reading
before voting season ended, and I wanted to be absolutely certain that
if that happened, the review would still be counted, but without the
anxiety and fuss of a last minute upload.

That, to me, is the real saving grace of having invisible tentative
reviews--when you think you might not have time to finish a story
before the deadline and are equally worried you might not have time to
upload the review due to RL, but want to be certain that *something*
will be posted, even if in a rough or incomplete form for a particular
story, tentative is the way to go.

It was also convenient in that they were all in one place and easily
filterable, so I didn't have to go searching through multiple
categories in my Word files (nearly all my reviews were composed in
Word and then uploaded at the end of a major reviewing session). I am
lazy, and this saved me a bit of time, searching through my Word
ballots with the "find" feature, and meant I only needed to have one
program open in these cases, not two. The old blueberry iBook
appreciates a little break every so often.

Dwim

What, you mean I'm the only person here who moogles the reviews she gets
over and over until she's embossed them on her cortex? (It saves so much
time when you want to cackle with glee while riding on the subway, you
know.)
;)

On 11/6/05, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well, should it happen that the majority go with having final reviews
> visible no matter what "season" it may be, it seems to me that it
> should be easy enough to hide the scores.
>
> Remember: when reviews first went public at the beginning of voting
> season, the *only* scores you could see were for reviews you had left.
> A little nip and tuck here and there, a cleaner turn of phrase, maybe
> a slight addition or subtraction is unlikely to be noticed and
> *counted* unless the author is putting each and every review through a
> char count program.
>
> Not to say that even the qualitative changes might not cause anxiety,
> but I think we need not be anxious about the number-crunching types
> immediately, not unless they're fanatics about it.
>
> Dwim
>
>


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

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:

>
> What, you mean I'm the only person here who moogles

"Moogles"? Er... "moogles"?

the reviews she gets

> over and over until she's embossed them on her cortex? (It saves so much
> time when you want to cackle with glee while riding on the subway, you
> know.)
> ;)

Oh, I certainly revisted and appreciated reviews qualitatively--but
not with a word count program in hand!

Dwim

On 11/6/05, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > What, you mean I'm the only person here who moogles
>
> "Moogles"? Er... "moogles"?

Well, "moons over" might have been misinterpreted, yes? And moogling is an
old tradition in my family, particularly while you are waiting for the
cookies on the tray to cool down enough to eat.

the reviews she gets

> > over and over until she's embossed them on her cortex? (It saves so much
> > time when you want to cackle with glee while riding on the subway, you
> > know.)
> > ;)
>
> Oh, I certainly revisted and appreciated reviews qualitatively--but
> not with a word count program in hand!
>
> Dwim

I do have a good memory for wording, so even if I didn't know the character
count, I'd notice changes made after a review was made public, and I expect
I'm not the only one. I hadn't thought of using tentative reviews to keep a
running commentary on longer stories (applauds you) but it's another good
reason to keep some reviews "hidden" until the reviewer has knocked them
into shape.
The nice thing is that as we all talk about the ways we used different
sorts of reviews, that information can go into the FAQs, so that the wheel
doesn't have to be invented quite so often.


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

>>> 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.
>

Good points, Thundera. Do you think it would help at all for an author
to be able to know somehow that they have tentative reviews, even if
they can't read what those reviews are? It wouldn't correct the
problem, but I think it would help ease it at least a bit.

I don't think I ever was a young writert in this sense. I started when
I was a college student, and I started writing before I ever knew of
anything called fanfic; there was just the urge to tell a good story,
and any feedback was secondary. So I can't properly empathise with
these writers since I never *really* felt that way. It doesn't change
the fact that they really feel that way. It just means that I have
something of a blind spot here.

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)

-- Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Good points, Thundera.

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Don't worry. It won't last long and we'll be returned to nonsensical ramblings momentarily. ;)

>> Do you think it would help at all for an author to be able to know
>> somehow that they have tentative reviews, even if they can't read
>> what those reviews are? It wouldn't correct the problem, but I
>> think it would help ease it at least a bit.

I don't know... Possibly, but there are several people out there making a pretty good case against these hidden reviews. Honestly, I've got to say that I liked how it worked this year. I liked the sudden sea of reviews at the end of reading season. It was fun. And up until then, no one but the admins could see who got what of anything. I liked that aspect, too. It was about as fair a playing field as you could get when working with something so subjective as writing.

>> I don't think I ever was a young writert in this sense. I started
>> when I was a college student, and I started writing before I ever
>> knew of anything called fanfic; there was just the urge to tell a
>> good story, and any feedback was secondary. So I can't properly
>> empathise with these writers since I never *really* felt that way.
>> It doesn't change the fact that they really feel that way. It just
>> means that I have something of a blind spot here.

I understand where they're coming from and I still go a bit haywire whenever I post something, but I'm probably like you, too, Marta. I started telling stories to my stuffed animals when I was five. They didn't give me any appreciable feedback, but they were an attentive audience and I thanked them for it. And I was always making up stories and sharing them with others at school, so it really wasn't that big of a step for me to try it out on the Internet. But for those to whom this is a very new experience, I'd like to make it as painless as possible. And prolonging the time when they can watch the final reviews add up while their stories continue on without those visible reviews doesn't seem like the way to go. But that's just my two cents, and I seem to be very much in the minority on this one. Seems to be my week for playing devil's advocate.

Thundera


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

>

Hi Kathy,

> (Sorry Marta, I'm afraid we've all gotten way off the official topic:
> how to limit nominations!) 
>

Don't worry about that! Like I said in another email, we'll get to as
much as we can get to. Obviously the topics we're discussing are the
ones of most interest to people.

As for the other things you said, I think I've replied elsewhere.

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)

Hi Sulriel,

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com,
>
> someone mentioned the anxiety caused by tentative reviews, authors
> wondering how many, if any, might be 'out there', but I'm not easily
> finding those lines in the previous posts ...
>
> I have to second this. It's a real and painful concern. I also
> fielded somewhat traumatized mails from various authors, and
> understand from private discussion that it was apparently somewhat
> widespread.
>
> so which is better?    the possibility of hidden reviews being
> collected in a long agony of hope  - or the cold stark reality of
> seeing that number and knowing that is the number.  Personally, I
> prefer cold and stark.  I won't argue either way, but I think it's
> something that needs to be discussed.  I can certainly understand how
> crushing emotion can can be, hope, loss of hope. -the assumptions
> that are made due to lack of reivews - ...  It doesn't take that much
> to throw off my writing for periods and I am fairly thick-skinned.  -
> (ok .. <ahem> I have a rhino-hide.)  Many of our authors are young
> and/or fragile and I hate to think of the possibilities of those that
> are being lost to the fandom instead of nurtured, but that's a
> whole 'nuther discussion that doesn't really belong here.
>

I wasn't aware that this was a problem, but I can certainly understand
it being one. Personally I prefer upfront as well. I don't want
tentative reviews to be visible until after voting season, but I
wouldn't at all mind if the author knew that some tentative reviews had
been made for their stories.

Dwim (and anyone else who wants to keep the possibility of non-visible
reviews during voting season): would you be okay with the *presence* of
those reviews being known to the author? They wouldn't be able to read
what the reviews said, just know of their existence.

> I think that if the final reviews are going to be editable, we only
> need the one option. (plus the note to self comment/check-box or
> whatever) - but I don't really agree with that.  I think final should
> be final and move on.  I think we're all guily of endless tweaking,
> and doing so with the reviews is likely to keep the reviewer from
> moving forward with new reviews.
>

Even if final reviews are editable, I'd still like to have the
possibility of a "hidden" review - what tentative is now. But like you,
I don't like the option of editing final reviews once they're visible.

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)

Hi Dwim,

On 6 Nov 2005, at 17:51, dwimmer_laik wrote:

> >But I just don't see the need for the three-tier
> > system (draft, tentative, final). I'd propose that any reviews
> posted
> > during nomination season appear en masse at the start of reading
> > season, or reading-voting season, or whatever we end up with, and
> any
> > reviews posted thereafter be immediately visible.
>
> This is a plea for retaining at least a two-tier, visible/invisible
> review system.
>

Consider it granted! I *really* don't want to do away with at least a
visible/invisible distinction in reviews. The debate is between
three-tiered and two-tiered as far as I'm concerned, *not* between
three-tiered and one-tiered.

> It was also convenient in that they were all in one place and easily
> filterable, so I didn't have to go searching through multiple
> categories in my Word files (nearly all my reviews were composed in
> Word and then uploaded at the end of a major reviewing session). I am
> lazy, and this saved me a bit of time, searching through my Word
> ballots with the "find" feature, and meant I only needed to have one
> program open in these cases, not two. The old blueberry iBook
> appreciates a little break every so often.
>

I agree with Dwim (if I'm understanding her correctly). I know some
people use other software like spreadsheets to organise what they still
want to read, but I'd rather have the ability to do as much within the
MEFA site as possible.I think that encourages people to use the site
more, and thus to review more.

Of course this has to be weighed against the demand on site resources
and work for Anthony, so there are undoubtedly some things where we
have to say "no, the MEFA site won't let you do this". But I as a
general principle I like being able to do more within the site rather
than less.

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)

Hi Rabidsamfan,

On 6 Nov 2005, at 12:24, C Dodd wrote:

> Okay, here's my take on this. According to what I read in emails sent
> around
> during voting, tentative reviews were used by some folks to filter out
> stories that they weren't interested in reading, yes? So putting up a
> number
> of "tentative" reviews would be like offering candy to the authors
> and then
> snatching it away just before Halloween.

For me, it's draft reviews and not tentative reviews that I used to
mark stories I wasn't interested in reading. I would filter the stories
to show those I had not yet reviewed and cast a draft review with no
characters if I didn't plan on reviewing it. That way I would only see
those stories that I hadn't yet decided to review or not, or still
wanted to review but hadn't got around to. This is probably a bad use
of system resources and perhaps I shouldn't do so next year. But
honestly, it seems like the only good use of a draft review that I can
imagine. If you don't intend to have the vote display or count, I'm not
sure why you would be casting a review. (Please, if someone is using
draft reviews for something else, let me know and don't take this as
criticism - I can't imagine such a use, that doesn't mean there isn't
one. I'm far from at my mental pique just now, and it's probably my
imagination that's at fault.)

From what I've heard, people are often using tentative votes for
comments on longer stories, that will later be turned into final
reviews. And that's good, because they'll eventually be shown if the
reviewer forgets to turn them into draft before the end of voting
season.

Anthony, this reminds me - how hard would it be to give a score of 0 to
those reviews with 0 characters? I think as it stands now they get 1
point, and I think it would be good if such reviews didn't affect the
scores.

> Is it possible for there to be a "hold aside" which reviewers could
> use to
> identify the stories which they didn't mean to review or didn't want
> to deal
> with while they were filtering for other things? Or could we strongly
> encourage people to only use the "draft" reviews that way? That would
> mean
> that tentative reviews could be used by reviewers who were going
> through a
> category and wanted to make sure that the story they liked best was
> the one
> which they gave the most votes, or to give themselves the chance to
> reread a
> review by daylight and correct misspellings etc. before making it
> final. And
> as a bonus, the number of tentative reviews could be revealed without
> also
> showing the reviews themselves.

I like the idea of a "hold aside" comment, if it's possible, Anthony.
I'm just not sure exactly how it might work. Anthony, IIRC the system
of marking reviews was tricky to implement it, and I don't want to ask
you to code that into a whole other section of the website unless you
can reuse the code. I would ask that you be able to mark only certain
stories on a page (perhaps with a "check all" feature) if we go with
that.

> Alternately, having final reviews appear earlier might encourage
> reviewers
> to finalize their reviews sooner, say after finishing reading through
> a
> category instead of waiting for everything to show up later. I know
> that I
> didn't bother to finalize a number of things until after I could see
> that it
> would be worth the effort -- i.e., when making a review final would
> make it
> appear. I wasn't quite sure why there were three categories of reviews
> possible until I'd worked with them for a good long while, and I
> almost
> never used the "draft" category once I'd figured out that "tentative"
> served
> my purposes better.
>

FWIW, I finalised my reviews as soon as I was sure I was happy enough.
This was for entirely lazy and selfish reasons: I didn't want to have
to go back and edit the review later to set them to final, and I wanted
the closure not haviong to mess with them provided. But I think you're
right in that it would encourage more people to submit final reviews
earlier.

> Even for folks who are readers and not authors, I think early reviews
> have
> some benefits. For one thing, it's nice to see your hard work out
> there all
> shiny if you've been writing reviews, and for another, it's nice to
> have
> models of reviews from experienced reviewers to go by when you start
> writing
> your own.

Agreed to all that.

> I also think, although I can't be sure, that the site got much heavier
> usage once reviews began to appear. I know I had more trouble getting
> in
> more often. Does anyone have the stats? Spreading the visible review
> period
> might ease site congestion, although not in the final week when we
> were all
> rushing.

I don't have stats on this, but I suspect you're right. I also suspect
that the site had the most traffic between 6 PM and 2 AM East Coast
time (covering the hours 6-11 in each of the US time zones). I know
from a British friend that there was a substantial drop in site
availability when all of us East Coast folks got home from work.

One think that I have discussed with some people behind the scenes is
the possibility of getting paid-for site hosting that would allow us to
have access to a server at a company. More bandwidth is a big reason to
consider this, as is less downtime when Ainae is physically away from
her computers. That's another topic I want to get into eventually, but
I did want to say that those of us active behind the scenes have
noticed this issue.

And one of these days, I'll learn that if I stop hinting at future
topics, we may actually finish the one at hand. ;-)

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)

Hi Anthony,

On 6 Nov 2005, at 15:43, Anthony Holder wrote:

> I've read through till now.
>
> Most of the things you all have mentioned are feasible, and not too
> difficult.
>
> I've added several things to my ToDo list, from these emails. At some
> point, I'll have to summarize, but probably not until the end of PM.
> That way, I will let you all know what I heard, and you can tell me if
> I'm correct.
>
> I'm expecting it to be a pretty long list. It is possible that some
> things on the list won't happen, but since I think most of the changes
> will be fairly cosmetic, I am not too concerned with it being too much
> time.
>
> Anthony
>

Anthony, I know that you've put a lot of work into this site. If
anything we suggest will require too much work *please* feel free to
let us know. I'm trying to keep reqd programming in mind with my
suggestions, but it's often hard to gauge because I don't know the
programming language the site is in, and I don't know a lot of the
specifics of how things are done right now.

You've done an impressive job, and I'd like to use that as much as
possible, with as little change. If an improvement will actually help,
that's one thing, but I'd like to use what we have as much as possible.

Cheers,
Marta

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

(Nelson Mandela)

On 6 Nov 2005, at 17:43, dwimmer_laik wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I see your point. I hadn't thought of that as I didn't vote
> that
> > way myself...I just figured my opinion is what it is, and let the
> > chips--and the scores--fall where they may. But I agree, it would be
> > pretty unpleasant for an author to see a review score fall after the
> > original post. So maybe the editable feature isn't such a good
> idea. 
> > But I'm still not crazy about hidden reviews...
>
> Well, should it happen that the majority go with having final reviews
> visible no matter what "season" it may be, it seems to me that it
> should be easy enough to hide the scores.
>

You're right. If reviews are made visible, there's no real reason to
make the *scores* visible. Someone could figure them out by hand if
they really wanted to, but there's no sense in making this information
obvious to people. Giving people that much information may increase
anxiety, and it would almost certainly distract people from reviewing.

> Remember: when reviews first went public at the beginning of voting
> season, the *only* scores you could see were for reviews you had left.
> A little nip and tuck here and there, a cleaner turn of phrase, maybe
> a slight addition or subtraction is unlikely to be noticed and
> *counted* unless the author is putting each and every review through a
> char count program.
>

I didn't know that. As an admin, I *think* I could see scores all
along, though perhaps I'm misremembering. In that case, there's
*really* no need to release points until voting season is over.

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)

Hi Thundera,

On 7 Nov 2005, at 01:05, Laura wrote:

> -- Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Good points, Thundera.
>
> Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Don't worry. It won't last
> long and we'll be returned to nonsensical ramblings momentarily. ;)
>

*snerk* Laughs are good...

>>> Do you think it would help at all for an author to be able to know
>>> somehow that they have tentative reviews, even if they can't read
>>> what those reviews are? It wouldn't correct the problem, but I
>>> think it would help ease it at least a bit.
>
> I don't know... Possibly, but there are several people out there
> making a pretty good case against these hidden reviews. Honestly, I've
> got to say that I liked how it worked this year. I liked the sudden
> sea of reviews at the end of reading season. It was fun. And up until
> then, no one but the admins could see who got what of anything. I
> liked that aspect, too. It was about as fair a playing field as you
> could get when working with something so subjective as writing.
>

I like having the tentative reviews. I think having them encouraged
authors, and votes that wouldn't have got made without them were made
because we had them. I didn't use them much myself, but if I had, I
probably would have made less mistakes and had to go in and edit them
using the admin features.

As for the sudden release of reviews... this is really an issue I don't
consider crucial, when we start displaying finalised reviews.
Personally I woudl like to have them available in smaller batches
throughout reading and voting season so I could absorb them. But if the
group wants to keep things the way they are, or whatever else - well,
I'll be happy to go along with that. I do want to wrap this up so we
don't get burned out before moving on to other topics.

>>> I don't think I ever was a young writert in this sense. I started
>>> when I was a college student, and I started writing before I ever
>>> knew of anything called fanfic; there was just the urge to tell a
>>> good story, and any feedback was secondary. So I can't properly
>>> empathise with these writers since I never *really* felt that way.
>>> It doesn't change the fact that they really feel that way. It just
>>> means that I have something of a blind spot here.
>
> I understand where they're coming from and I still go a bit haywire
> whenever I post something, but I'm probably like you, too, Marta. I
> started telling stories to my stuffed animals when I was five. They
> didn't give me any appreciable feedback, but they were an attentive
> audience and I thanked them for it. And I was always making up stories
> and sharing them with others at school, so it really wasn't that big
> of a step for me to try it out on the Internet.

Yes. The new part to me is writing them down; I grew up in a family
with a very strong oral story-telling tradition and was raised on
stories involving figures from folktales woven into stories involving
me (Baba Yaga, the emperor with no clothes, and so on). Later I would
sit with my cousin in an outdoors cafe for hours every Saturday and
come up with stories about the people we saw passing by. I never wrote
them down until recently, but I've always been imagining and sharing
them.

> But for those to whom this is a very new experience, I'd like to make
> it as painless as possible. And prolonging the time when they can
> watch the final reviews add up while their stories continue on without
> those visible reviews doesn't seem like the way to go. But that's just
> my two cents, and I seem to be very much in the minority on this one.
> Seems to be my week for playing devil's advocate.
>

I can see it being painful both ways -- less painful for some authors
one way, and less painful for other authors the main way. Personally, I
think I would be more offended by the thought that the reviewers hadn't
given me reviews in the last week, than that they hadn't in several
months. But I can definitely see how that might be different for
different 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)

> Consider it granted! I *really* don't want to do away with at least a
> visible/invisible distinction in reviews. The debate is between
> three-tiered and two-tiered as far as I'm concerned, *not* between
> three-tiered and one-tiered.

I liked the three-tiered system. I didn't use any spreadsheet or document,
since I did my reading and reviewing from different computers during the
day. I desperately needed the 'Draft' setting to mark stories I had read but
didn't want to review. And I was grateful that these reviews vanished at the
end without me having to go through all my reviews and delete them by hand.

Chris

I use multiple computers too. If I'd thought of using the draft reviews that
way it would have saved me a lot of time and headaches.

On 11/8/05, Chris Grzonka <grzonka@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > Consider it granted! I *really* don't want to do away with at least a
> > visible/invisible distinction in reviews. The debate is between
> > three-tiered and two-tiered as far as I'm concerned, *not* between
> > three-tiered and one-tiered.
>
> I liked the three-tiered system. I didn't use any spreadsheet or document,
> since I did my reading and reviewing from different computers during the
> day. I desperately needed the 'Draft' setting to mark stories I had read
> but
> didn't want to review. And I was grateful that these reviews vanished at
> the
> end without me having to go through all my reviews and delete them by
> hand.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


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

if I understand all that has been said on this topic, what we're
looking as is doing away with draft reviews and replacing them with a
toggle "don't review" and "review later" - and keeping tentative and
final reviews.

final reviews to be released periodically

tentative to be finalized and made visable at the end of voting
seaon.

the other difference to be that the *number* (but not the text) of
pending (tentative) reviews will be visable alongside the number of
final reviews.

...???

Sulriel







--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Grzonka" <grzonka@a...>
wrote:

>
> > Consider it granted! I *really* don't want to do away with at

least a

> > visible/invisible distinction in reviews. The debate is between
> > three-tiered and two-tiered as far as I'm concerned, *not* between
> > three-tiered and one-tiered.
>
> I liked the three-tiered system. I didn't use any spreadsheet or

document,

> since I did my reading and reviewing from different computers

during the

> day. I desperately needed the 'Draft' setting to mark stories I had

read but

> didn't want to review. And I was grateful that these reviews

vanished at the

> end without me having to go through all my reviews and delete them

by hand.

>
> Chris
>

Hi Chris,

> > Consider it granted! I *really* don't want to do away with at least a
> > visible/invisible distinction in reviews. The debate is between
> > three-tiered and two-tiered as far as I'm concerned, *not* between
> > three-tiered and one-tiered.
>
> I liked the three-tiered system. I didn't use any spreadsheet or
> document,
> since I did my reading and reviewing from different computers during
> the
> day. I desperately needed the 'Draft' setting to mark stories I had
> read but
> didn't want to review. And I was grateful that these reviews vanished
> at the
> end without me having to go through all my reviews and delete them by
> hand.
>

As I understand it, people wouldn't need draft reviews except to mark
stories they had already read. If we had a way to mark such stories and
not have them display under the "Have Not Reviewed" filter, would you
still need 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)

On 8 Nov 2005, at 20:53, sulriel wrote:

>
> if I understand all that has been said on this topic, what we're
> looking as is doing away with draft reviews and replacing them with a
> toggle "don't review" and "review later" - and keeping tentative and
> final reviews. 
>

That's my understanding.

> final reviews to be released periodically
>

Again, that's my understanding.

> tentative to be finalized and made visable at the end of voting
> seaon.
>

Just so we're clear, after voting closes. I think that's what you mean,
but for a second I thought on the last day of voting season. I think it
might take a day or two for them to show up.

> the other difference to be that the *number* (but not the text) of
> pending (tentative) reviews will be visable alongside the number of
> final reviews.
>

My understanding is that we would display the fact that a particular
story had tentative reviews, not the exact number. But I have no huge
problem with it displaying the exact number if that's what people want.

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)

Would the mark show up on the Browse Stories page? Since I used different
computers and had no real strategy of methodically reviewing stories, I saw
with the Edit Tentative/Final/Draft Review or Enter Review, whether I had
touched a story or not. I tried to go in with the filter Have not Reviewed
once, but the result was too confusing to me to find what I wanted to read.
I hadn't reviewed many stories at that point. But maybe I didn't quite
understand how the filters worked. I got a lot of confusing results when I
used filters. They didn't always work the way I expected<g>. What I liked
about my using draft reviews was that I didn't have to use extra filters.
When I searched in a category the marker was right there on the page.

Chris

>
> > I liked the three-tiered system. I didn't use any spreadsheet or
> > document,
> > since I did my reading and reviewing from different computers during
> > the
> > day. I desperately needed the 'Draft' setting to mark stories I had
> > read but
> > didn't want to review. And I was grateful that these reviews vanished
> > at the
> > end without me having to go through all my reviews and delete them by
> > hand.
> >
>
> As I understand it, people wouldn't need draft reviews except to mark
> stories they had already read. If we had a way to mark such stories and
> not have them display under the "Have Not Reviewed" filter, would you
> still need 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)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Nov 10, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Chris Grzonka wrote:

> Would the mark show up on the Browse Stories page?

Definitely.

> But maybe I didn't quite
> understand how the filters worked. I got a lot of confusing results
> when I
> used filters. They didn't always work the way I expected<g>.

I plan to review all the filters as part of any work I do. I've seen
other comments that they didn't behave as expected. When it comes
closer, I'll probably ask for people to test.

On reviewer names being visible during reading/voting season, it might
be time for a poll.

They should definitely be visible after voting is over. Also, if
they're not visible, as stated before, I can do a 'Read other reviews
by this reviewer' link, even without showing the name.

Anthony