Yahoo Forum Archive

>
> Hey guys,
>
> I have to admit that I'm getting a little lost in the posts. Why

>
> 1. Limiting Nominations
> a. How to limit: by limit on number any nominator can suggest
> b. What type of limit: single limit per nominator
> c. What limit: This is still undecided. Please discuss.

> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to

>
> Hey guys,
>
> I have to admit that I'm getting a little lost in the posts. Why don't
> I do a quick run-down and see what's been decided and what's not.
>
> 1. Limiting Nominations
> a. How to limit: by limit on number any nominator can suggest
> b. What type of limit: single limit per nominator
> c. What limit: This is still undecided. Please discuss.

> a. Draft reviews: Undecided. People have suggested relabelling "draft"
> as "author's notes". Also, perhaps get rid of them if Anthony
> implements a system to mark what stories you don't want to review.
> b. Tentative reviews: Some people don't see the need for them, most
> people like having that option. I am convinceable on everything, but
> I'll say upfront that it will take a lot of convincing for me on this
> one. However, if you think having some reviews hidden is bad for the
> awards - not just something you won't do - explain your reasoning.
> Possibly change name to "hidden" to make purpose clearer.
> c. Final reviews: Will definitely continue to exist. Possibly change
> name to "visible".

> a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> Season.
> b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout Reading/Voting
> Season.
> c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the beginning of
> Voting Season (September?)
> d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.

> - Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.

> - This is another area I'm drawing a blank on. I know we were talking
> about specific suggestions. Include any in this reply.
>
> If I'm missing something, let me know.

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
The only way I'd be happy with losing nominator
> information is if the awards went to completely being self-
nominations (and> that's an intriguing idea, indeed!)


ARGH! I just lost a long post ... I think I accidently changed it to
french or something and then it was gone.

anyway - I would strongly support this and will be happy to go into
the reasons if it's a possiblity.

Sulriel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marta Layton" <melayton@gmail.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 7:24 PM
Subject: [MEFAwards] Summary of Topics Addressed so Far


> Hey guys,
>
> I have to admit that I'm getting a little lost in the posts. Why don't
> I do a quick run-down and see what's been decided and what's not.
>
> 1. Limiting Nominations
> a. How to limit: by limit on number any nominator can suggest
> b. What type of limit: single limit per nominator
> c. What limit: This is still undecided. Please discuss.
>
On "c" I would suggest 15 or 20, would prefer 15.

> 2. Types of Reviews
> a. Draft reviews: Undecided. People have suggested relabelling "draft"
> as "author's notes". Also, perhaps get rid of them if Anthony
> implements a system to mark what stories you don't want to review.
> b. Tentative reviews: Some people don't see the need for them, most
> people like having that option. I am convinceable on everything, but
> I'll say upfront that it will take a lot of convincing for me on this
> one. However, if you think having some reviews hidden is bad for the
> awards - not just something you won't do - explain your reasoning.
> Possibly change name to "hidden" to make purpose clearer.
> c. Final reviews: Will definitely continue to exist. Possibly change
> name to "visible".

I think keep the three tier thing: visible, hidden, and maybe "mark place"

>
[snip 3,4,5]

> 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> Season.
> b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout Reading/Voting
> Season.
> c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the beginning of
> Voting Season (September?)
> d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.

I like option "b". This is a reasonable compromise that addresses 3
concerns. (1) It makes the reviews available throughout the reading/voting
season, which benefits those who want to see the reviews earlier (2) By
doling them out in batches, it dilutes any possible "unfair advantage" held
by one or two early reviews having too much influence and (3) We still get
the psychological "bump" of seeing a number of reviews go up overnight--not
in the hundreds, probably, but hopefully at least in the dozens
>
> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to author)
> - Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.

I like the idea someone--sorry, not sure who,--came up with of moving the
nominator's name from the front page to the "story detail" page. It would
still be there for those who care about such things, but would not have as
much influence as being right in your face every time you open the main
page. I think it is an excellent compromise for those who want transparency
will still have it, they just have to go one more click to see it, while
those who worry about a nominator's name having too much impact will see
that considerably lessened, although not completely eliminated.

>
> 8. How to encourage reviewers, even of small number of stories.
> - This is another area I'm drawing a blank on. I know we were talking
> about specific suggestions. Include any in this reply.

I think having reviews show up earlier will be encouraging in and of itself.
Here are a few other suggestions: pimping by individuals on LJs and
webpages; for FAQs, perhaps include a "dummy page" with fake "reviews"
showing everything from a lowly 1 or 2 pointer, then a mid-range review of
say 4 or 5, and finally a 9 or 10 pointer--this could give people an idea of
what to shoot for; include a page with various "voting strategies" that
members in the past have come up with. Also, I think if individual members
will enthuse enough about the reviews they *did* get *this* year, or about
what fun it was to *write* the reviews, it also might get some more
response.

One thing that's come up I am definitely against: making it completely
self-nominating. I do not care for that idea at all. After two years I am
only barely getting used to the idea that I might possibly bring myself to
nom one or two of my own stories next year. If I *had* to nominate all of
them myself, I don't think I should like that. I still think it is better
for someone else to nominate, for any number of reasons.

Dreamflower

>
> If I'm missing something, let me know.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> Hey guys,
>
> I have to admit that I'm getting a little lost in the posts. Why
> don't I do a quick run-down and see what's been decided and what's
> not.

>
> 1. Limiting Nominations
> a. How to limit: by limit on number any nominator can suggest
> b. What type of limit: single limit per nominator
> c. What limit: This is still undecided. Please discuss.

>
> 2. Types of Reviews
> a. Draft reviews: Undecided. People have suggested
> relabelling "draft"
> as "author's notes". Also, perhaps get rid of them if Anthony
> implements a system to mark what stories you don't want to review.
> b. Tentative reviews: Some people don't see the need for them, most
> people like having that option. I am convinceable on everything,
> but I'll say upfront that it will take a lot of convincing for me
> on this one. However, if you think having some reviews hidden is
> bad for the awards - not just something you won't do - explain your
> reasoning. Possibly change name to "hidden" to make purpose clearer.

> c. Final reviews: Will definitely continue to exist. Possibly
> change name to "visible".
>
> 3. Self-nomination - will be allowed with no restrictions other
> than the limit of nominations by single nominator.
>
> 4. Nominators' comment - We will not be doing this. We may release
> reviews earlier, which will serve a similar purpose. (See below.)
>
> 5. Required reviewing - Nominators will not be required to submit a
> vote for the nomination to be considered. They will be encouraged
> to vote as soon as possible, but not required.
>
> 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> Season.

> b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> Reading/Voting Season.

> c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the beginning
> of Voting Season (September?)

> d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.

> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> author) - Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.

>
> 8. How to encourage reviewers, even of small number of stories.
> This is another area I'm drawing a blank on. I know we were
> talking about specific suggestions. Include any in this reply.

>
> Hey guys,
>
> I have to admit that I'm getting a little lost in the posts. Why
> don't I do a quick run-down and see what's been decided and what's
> not.
>
> 1. Limiting Nominations
> a. How to limit: by limit on number any nominator can suggest
> b. What type of limit: single limit per nominator
> c. What limit: This is still undecided. Please discuss.

> 2. Types of Reviews
> a. Draft reviews: Undecided. People have suggested relabelling
> "draft" as "author's notes". Also, perhaps get rid of them if
> Anthony implements a system to mark what stories you don't want to
> review.

> b. Tentative reviews: Some people don't see the need for them, most
> people like having that option. I am convinceable on everything, but
> I'll say upfront that it will take a lot of convincing for me on
> this one. However, if you think having some reviews hidden is bad
> for the awards - not just something you won't do - explain your
> reasoning. Possibly change name to "hidden" to make purpose clearer.

> c. Final reviews: Will definitely continue to exist. Possibly change
> name to "visible".

> 3. Self-nomination - will be allowed with no restrictions other than
> the limit of nominations by single nominator.

> 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> Season.
> b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> Reading/Voting Season.
> c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the beginning
> of Voting Season (September?)
> d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.

> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> author)- Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.

> 8. How to encourage reviewers, even of small number of stories.
> - This is another area I'm drawing a blank on. I know we were
> talking about specific suggestions. Include any in this reply.

> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> > author)- Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
>
> I don't know, but I am all for it. I saw also the suggestion to bury
> it a bit deeper in the system, I think this will help.
>
> To be honest, I am wondering what gives some the idea of cliqiu (oh I
> so don't like this word, forgive me). Transparentness is named. But
> what does contribute to this the most, where did folks got the 'bad'
> feeling? From what I sensed, folks were pretty upbeat during
> nomination season, so that can't be it. It was transparent enough,
> everyone seemed to be happy. So then, I think it must have started to
> grow during reading and voting seasons, where author's logged in once
> a while, to see if they received reviews or not. Some noted that they
> were ignored, others had a happy moment every day. So I can imagine
> that the feeling of unrest started to grow, on top of that the post on
> that only a select group of people reviewed (I know this was meant in
> the most encouraging way), to stimulate people to review more. I know
> that that didn't helped those uncertain authors either. Even more,
> those started to say that they were not going through this again.

> So hiding the names of reviewers: no, keep them. Otherwise it will
> only create more unrest. What might help is to shield the nominators
> from the eye. Because actually, they don't add up to making things
> that transparent in that stage. Now before I get many no no no's slung
> at me: each to their own how they choose and pick out their stories to
> review and read. Really. But do keep in mind how that feels to authors
> who do check in once a while and see within a category, authors
> nominated by a certain person getting loads of reviews, while that
> author with a lesser known or popular nominator gets less reviews. Try
> to imagine that impact. Try to imagine how that works very
> disheartening. Try to imagine how hard it must not be to think: hey
> that author belongs to the group of cool authors while I am not.

> all of this, we also need to consider how this comes across to the
> participating author. The author has a certain amount of control on
> their nomination, but not on the one who nominates. Honestly, I did
> beat myself pretty hard about my role as nominator, playing with
> fragile feelings of authors only to see them crushed even more. I am
> not going there again, I've learnt my lesson. If someone doesn't share
> my taste in stories.. don't punish the author for it or give them the
> feeling that it is because of the nominator, they didn't get that much
> reviews as they deserved.

>
> > 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> > > author)- Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
> >
> > I don't know, but I am all for it. I saw also the suggestion to

> > it a bit deeper in the system, I think this will help.
> >
> > To be honest, I am wondering what gives some the idea of cliqiu

> > so don't like this word, forgive me). Transparentness is named.

> > what does contribute to this the most, where did folks got

> > feeling? From what I sensed, folks were pretty upbeat during
> > nomination season, so that can't be it. It was transparent enough,
> > everyone seemed to be happy. So then, I think it must have

> > grow during reading and voting seasons, where author's logged in

> > a while, to see if they received reviews or not. Some noted that

> > were ignored, others had a happy moment every day. So I can

> > that the feeling of unrest started to grow, on top of that the

> > that only a select group of people reviewed (I know this was

> > the most encouraging way), to stimulate people to review more. I

> > that that didn't helped those uncertain authors either. Even more,
> > those started to say that they were not going through this again.
>
> I'm beginning to think we need specifics. Were authors unhappy

> couldn't tell that they didn't have tentative reviews, perhaps?

> unhappy because their own "friends" hadn't reviewed? If you know

> these uncertain authors, please encourage him or her to contribute

> discussion, because I feel like naming nominators is taking the

> the long dry period of waiting to find out whether or not anyone

> (Yes, reading season made me impatient.)
> You have a bit of a point about the shortlist of heavy reviewers.

> be answered by giving the data without names, and making sure to

> numbers all the way down to the reviewer who has done one or two

> But on the whole, accusations of cliquishness arise because some

> more involved in any given project than other people and their

> more often. The accusations are only justified if that "in-group"

> measures to prevent anyone else from joining them or knowing what

> doing, and I think the MEFAs stand absolved of that.
>
> > So hiding the names of reviewers: no, keep them. Otherwise it will
> > only create more unrest. What might help is to shield the

> > from the eye. Because actually, they don't add up to making things
> > that transparent in that stage. Now before I get many no no no's

> > at me: each to their own how they choose and pick out their

> > review and read. Really. But do keep in mind how that feels to

> > who do check in once a while and see within a category, authors
> > nominated by a certain person getting loads of reviews, while that
> > author with a lesser known or popular nominator gets less

> > to imagine that impact. Try to imagine how that works very
> > disheartening. Try to imagine how hard it must not be to think:

> > that author belongs to the group of cool authors while I am not.
>
> You know, I can't really imagine that -- probably because I very

> filtered by category, but also because I can't imagine any category

> dominated by one nominator that the effect would show. The actual
> competition was in the subcategory level, and none of those

> were more than what, fifteen stories? Particularly with a limit on

> number of stories any nominator can submit, I doubt that it would be
> possible to correlate reviews to nominators at a glance. And if I

> notice, my response would probably be to try to wave a little

> attract the attention of a well-respected reviewer/nominator, so

> me next time.
>
> I am not suggesting it to make a reviewers life so much harder,

> > all of this, we also need to consider how this comes across to the
> > participating author. The author has a certain amount of control

> > their nomination, but not on the one who nominates. Honestly, I

> > beat myself pretty hard about my role as nominator, playing with
> > fragile feelings of authors only to see them crushed even more. I

> > not going there again, I've learnt my lesson. If someone doesn't

> > my taste in stories.. don't punish the author for it or give them

> > feeling that it is because of the nominator, they didn't get that

> > reviews as they deserved.
>
> So it's better for an author to think that it's the story's fault

> didn't get reviews? (sarcasm!)
> Now, I <i>did</i> feel I had control, as an author, over who

> stuff, and in fact had to choose because I was asked permission to

> one story by two people. I didn't think in terms of "oh, that one's

> prestigious", I just checked the timestamp on the e-mails, but an

> was concerned about the effect of the nominator's name (if there

> authors who feel that way -- I still think they're theoretical)

> to self-nominate or wait for a better offer.
>
> About the only way you could reconcile me to hiding reviewers names

> to make them eligible for a search. That way you'd only see one

> suggestions at a time, and it would be a pain in the lower regions

> make comparisons.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>> I'm beginning to think we need specifics. Were authors unhappy

>>>>If you know one of > these uncertain authors, please encourage

>>> But on the whole, accusations of cliquishness arise because some

>
>>> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
>>> author)- Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
>>
>> I don't know, but I am all for it. I saw also the suggestion to
>> bury it a bit deeper in the system, I think this will help.
>>
>> To be honest, I am wondering what gives some the idea of cliqiu
>> (oh I so don't like this word, forgive me). Transparentness is
>> named. But what does contribute to this the most, where did folks
>> got the 'bad' feeling? <snip>

> I'm beginning to think we need specifics. Were authors unhappy
> because they couldn't tell that they didn't have tentative reviews,
> perhaps? Were they unhappy because their own "friends" hadn't
> reviewed? If you know one of these uncertain authors, please
> encourage him or her to contribute to this discussion, because I
> feel like naming nominators is taking the blame for the long dry
> period of waiting to find out whether or not anyone cared.

> Were authors unhappy because they couldn't tell that they didn't
> have tentative reviews, perhaps?

> Were they unhappy because their own "friends" hadn't reviewed?

> (Yes, reading season made me impatient.)
> You have a bit of a point about the shortlist of heavy reviewers.

> But on the whole, accusations of cliquishness arise because some
> people are more involved in any given project than other people and
> their names appear more often. The accusations are only justified
> if that "in-group" takes measures to prevent anyone else from
> joining them or knowing what they're doing, and I think the MEFAs
> stand absolved of that.

>> Try to imagine that impact. Try to imagine how that works very
>> disheartening. Try to imagine how hard it must not be to think: hey
>> that author belongs to the group of cool authors while I am not.
>
> You know, I can't really imagine that -- probably because I very
> seldom filtered by category, but also because I can't imagine any
> category being so dominated by one nominator that the effect would
> show. The actual competition was in the subcategory level, and none
> of those subcategories were more than what, fifteen stories?

> And if I did notice, my response would probably be to try to wave a
> little harder and attract the attention of a well-respected
> reviewer/nominator, so they'd know me next time.

On 11/9/05, rhapsody_the_bard <rhapsody74@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> >>> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> >>> author)- Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
> >>
> >> I don't know, but I am all for it. I saw also the suggestion to
> >> bury it a bit deeper in the system, I think this will help.
> >>
> >> To be honest, I am wondering what gives some the idea of cliqiu
> >> (oh I so don't like this word, forgive me). Transparentness is
> >> named. But what does contribute to this the most, where did folks
> >> got the 'bad' feeling? <snip>
>
> > I'm beginning to think we need specifics. Were authors unhappy
> > because they couldn't tell that they didn't have tentative reviews,
> > perhaps? Were they unhappy because their own "friends" hadn't
> > reviewed? If you know one of these uncertain authors, please
> > encourage him or her to contribute to this discussion, because I
> > feel like naming nominators is taking the blame for the long dry
> > period of waiting to find out whether or not anyone cared.
>
> I am not talking about reviews and reviewers here. Simply about
> Nominations and nominators.
>
> But to answer your questions
>
> > Were authors unhappy because they couldn't tell that they didn't
> > have tentative reviews, perhaps?
>
> If you don't know that there are any tentatives, how can you worry?
> Explaining to them that there might be tentatives in the pipeline
> only adds to uncertainty.
>
> > Were they unhappy because their own "friends" hadn't reviewed?
>
> No, gratefulness around regarding that. It is more that their friends
> cared, but the rest ignored them. Why? How? I don't have a clue, well
> maybe I do and I apologised for it if it was about the fact that I
> nominated them. To be active in a group, SSP your ass of and yet get
> neglected because some unknown or impopular nominator nominated
> you... That makes you wonder. It makes you wonder about the display
> of the nominator & validity of it in that stage.
>
> > (Yes, reading season made me impatient.)
> > You have a bit of a point about the shortlist of heavy reviewers.
>
> It isn't about reviewers. It is about nominators. Two complete
> different things.
>
> > But on the whole, accusations of cliquishness arise because some
> > people are more involved in any given project than other people and
> > their names appear more often. The accusations are only justified
> > if that "in-group" takes measures to prevent anyone else from
> > joining them or knowing what they're doing, and I think the MEFAs
> > stand absolved of that.
>
> Well, I am far from in-group, I think. But I am a new author, started
> to post to archives less then a year ago. I am lesser known, or my
> taste or my quality in writing then someone like Dwim, or Marta (no
> offense intented towards you girls). If people rather choose for
> someone they know under time pressure, why as an unknown person
> nominate at all?
>
> >> Try to imagine that impact. Try to imagine how that works very
> >> disheartening. Try to imagine how hard it must not be to think: hey
> >> that author belongs to the group of cool authors while I am not.
> >
> > You know, I can't really imagine that -- probably because I very
> > seldom filtered by category, but also because I can't imagine any
> > category being so dominated by one nominator that the effect would
> > show. The actual competition was in the subcategory level, and none
> > of those subcategories were more than what, fifteen stories?
>
> Well, to quote Ghettoelleth: there is an hour of my life I never get
> back. I simply tried to reflect how others look at it, but well.
> Never mind.
>
> > And if I did notice, my response would probably be to try to wave a
> > little harder and attract the attention of a well-respected
> > reviewer/nominator, so they'd know me next time.
>
> Right, so it all boils down to SSP'ing, right. It's their own fault
> for not being pimped by someone else or not being noticed before the
> awards.
>
> I said my piece, tried to bring across concerns and feelings of
> others, so I'll just shut up.
>
> Rhapsody
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Writing a book report<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book+report&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Business+writing+book&w6=Writing+child+book&c=6&s=167&.sig=lbYM2gL87TmhNQm7lSb8cA> Writing
> and publishing a book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Business+writing+book&w6=Writing+child+book&c=6&s=167&.sig=G9_meQasBuSesAa3qHMWvw> Creative
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Creative+writing+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Business+writing+book&w6=Writing+child+book&c=6&s=167&.sig=Zpt0Fhlk_P2FAv6QsoiZ9A> Book
> writing software<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Business+writing+book&w6=Writing+child+book&c=6&s=167&.sig=5_eAMYJ9yf7W80C2aHVgcQ> Business
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Business+writing+book&w6=Writing+child+book&c=6&s=167&.sig=vsJ7wlYnDl8ojeWaDmEWvw> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Book+writing+software&w5=Business+writing+book&w6=Writing+child+book&c=6&s=167&.sig=QE0mLhykPmOTObA-2DwBeQ>
> ------------------------------
> 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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "rhapsody_the_bard" <rhapsody74@gmail.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:33 AM
Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far


> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
>>
> No, gratefulness around regarding that. It is more that their friends
> cared, but the rest ignored them. Why? How? I don't have a clue, well
> maybe I do and I apologised for it if it was about the fact that I
> nominated them. To be active in a group, SSP your ass of and yet get
> neglected because some unknown or impopular nominator nominated
> you... That makes you wonder. It makes you wonder about the display
> of the nominator & validity of it in that stage.

I don't understand why you think you are unknown or unpopular, Rhapsody?
I'm basically a newcomer myself--I only started posting in Feb. of 2004. If
there are cliques or feuds, I'm fairly ignorant of them unless they are very
recent or unless someone who's been around longer than I tells me about
them. And I tend to stay neutral in that sort of thing anyway. I learned
that from trying to survive newsgroups.

And I can't begin to imagine the mindset of "Don't read that, someone we
don't like nominated it." I can't believe for the life of me that it's as
pervasive as you make it sound. I never paid much attention at all to the
nominator, and even when I did, it was usually after I had already read and
reviewed.

My choice of which stories to read first were categories, plain and simple.
I am not knowledgeable enough about the Silm, for example, to truly enjoy
Silm fic. But once all the hobbit categories were dealt with, I went on to
randomly sample many other categories than I normally read, and even found a
few interesting Silmarillion things, or Men or Elf stories.

I think the idea of moving the info one layer back into the story details
should be a good compromise. That keeps the nominator out of people's
faces, yet the info is there if one wishes to search for it.

>
>> (Yes, reading season made me impatient.)
>> You have a bit of a point about the shortlist of heavy reviewers.
>
> It isn't about reviewers. It is about nominators. Two complete
> different things.
>
>> But on the whole, accusations of cliquishness arise because some
>> people are more involved in any given project than other people and
>> their names appear more often. The accusations are only justified
>> if that "in-group" takes measures to prevent anyone else from
>> joining them or knowing what they're doing, and I think the MEFAs
>> stand absolved of that.
>
> Well, I am far from in-group, I think. But I am a new author, started
> to post to archives less then a year ago. I am lesser known, or my
> taste or my quality in writing then someone like Dwim, or Marta (no
> offense intented towards you girls). If people rather choose for
> someone they know under time pressure, why as an unknown person
> nominate at all?
>
Again, to me many of the names of both authors and nominators were
unknown--that never kept me from reading a story in a category I was
interested in. And being "known" is relative. I was quite shocked when
Marigold once told me I was "known". And there are many very prolific
writers that have been around for years that are still "new" to me because I
simply haven't yet come across them, or their writing is in a genre I don't
usually frequent. I think the whole idea of being "known" is blown out of
proportion. Some people are very well known within their genre, and have a
following. Yet if they branch out into something different or new, they
might lose that following, and may or may not attract a new circle of
readers. The MEFAs are one way in which that can happen, by exposing us to
writers we haven't read before.

That is a Good Thing, not a bad one. And once more I reiterate--I would
*never* NOT read something because a certain person nominated it or reviewed
it. And I don't believe I'm alone in that attitude.

>>> Try to imagine that impact. Try to imagine how that works very
>>> disheartening. Try to imagine how hard it must not be to think: hey
>>> that author belongs to the group of cool authors while I am not.

A group of "cool authors"? Really? Again, outside of a very few closed
communities or closed archives I don't think there is such a thing. And
even there, it's limited to themselves. Most of that sort probably look
down on the MEFAs as not exclusive enough, and don't even participate.


>>
>> You know, I can't really imagine that -- probably because I very
>> seldom filtered by category, but also because I can't imagine any
>> category being so dominated by one nominator that the effect would
>> show. The actual competition was in the subcategory level, and none
>> of those subcategories were more than what, fifteen stories?
>
> Well, to quote Ghettoelleth: there is an hour of my life I never get
> back. I simply tried to reflect how others look at it, but well.
> Never mind.

It's possible a few may look at it like that, and that's a shame. But we
can't really completely control someone else's perceptions--if their
self-esteem is that low, they will find something to feel slighted over even
when no offense is meant, however hard we try to lean over backwards. So
why put our spines out of whack trying to do the impossible?

The only thing we *can* do is what the MEFAs are about--trying to spread the
good feeling of getting a good review. And to be as friendly as we can to
any newcomer among us. And as such making it easier for many people to
review is the best solution. Limiting nominations will help that.

>
>> And if I did notice, my response would probably be to try to wave a
>> little harder and attract the attention of a well-respected
>> reviewer/nominator, so they'd know me next time.
>
> Right, so it all boils down to SSP'ing, right. It's their own fault
> for not being pimped by someone else or not being noticed before the
> awards.
>
> I said my piece, tried to bring across concerns and feelings of
> others, so I'll just shut up.
>
I don't think it boils down to SSPing at all. It boils down to writing and
posting good stories that people want to read, and posting them visibly,
throughout the year. And if you have a friend who has written something
worthwhile, or even if you discover a writer you've never heard of, you rec
their story as widely as you can. *That's* what makes someone noticed
before the awards. At least two of the stories I nommed, I had *never*
heard of the writer before I read and nominated their stories. I know them
now. And so does everyone else I've been able to convince to read their
work. I've recently found someone else I never heard of before who has an
excellent WIP. I'm pimping her story everywhere I can. And I am doing
that for the *story's* sake.

Believe me, the nomination list I've started for next year includes already
*four* people I never heard of before I read their wonderful stories.

It's about the stories, and *not* who writes them.

Dreamflower


> Rhapsody
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> I'm not sure what "SSP" stands for, so I can't address that
> point.

On 8 Nov 2005, at 21:02, sulriel wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I have to admit that I'm getting a little lost in the posts. Why
> don't > I do a quick run-down and see what's been decided and what's
> not.
> >
> > 1. Limiting Nominations
> > a. How to limit: by limit on number any nominator can suggest
> > b. What type of limit: single limit per nominator
> > c. What limit: This is still undecided. Please discuss.
>
> I would have said lower, but it seems like so many people nominated
> only a few stories, I think it would be ok for those who are more
> enthusiastic to nominate up to 20.
>

My opinion isn't worth very much on this topic because I nominated so
many last year, I know. But based on the numbers Anthony gave us
earlier I think 20 seems a reasonable number. It also would be a
compromise between the people who seem to want 10-15 and the people who
want 25.

> > 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> author)> - Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
>
> I'm suggesting these in trying to find a reasonable compromise
> between transparancy and cliquishness.
>
> what if the nominator names were displayed only on the detail pages -
> sorry, can't remember what they're called, when you filter, then
> click to get a list, then click on the story details.  they would be
> available within a few clicks, but not in-your-face with the list of
> stories.
>

That seems reasonable to me.

> and the reviewer name displayed on the reivew only after the end of
> voting season.
>

I suggested in another email to RabidSamFan that perhaps we could:

1. Display votes after the end of check ballot season, releasing in
weekly batches (initially no names).
2. About a month before the end of voting we begin to display the
reviewers' names. This is to encourage people to brnach out into
categories they read less often. (I think we displayed reviewers' names
already this year?)

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 22:55, Kathy wrote:

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I have to admit that I'm getting a little lost in the posts. Why
> > don't I do a quick run-down and see what's been decided and what's
> > not.
>
> Thank you!! The discussions *were* getting a bit circular, as these
> Yahoo threads can do...

They were, weren't they? And while I want to give everyone a chance to
have their say, we do also have a fair amount of ground to cover. Best
to move things forward.

> >
> > 1. Limiting Nominations
> > a. How to limit: by limit on number any nominator can suggest
> > b. What type of limit: single limit per nominator
> > c. What limit: This is still undecided. Please discuss.
>
> I'd lean toward lower, like 15, but could live with 20 or 25. No more
> than that, though, or I think we run the risk of being right back
> where we started.  While a lot of folks only nominated 1 or 2 this
> year, that may change as people realize the heavy nominators have had
> their fingers broken. Also, membership may go up as awareness of the
> MEFAs increases...

I definitely don't want to go above 25. 20 seems most reasonable to me,
though I think I want a higher number than a lot of people so I can
nominate drabbles. I could probably live with 15, though that seems
restrictive to me - would be much happier with 20.

And again, these are my personal feelings -- if you feel strongly about
lower or higher and have a reason, please feel free to speak up..

> > 2. Types of Reviews
> > a. Draft reviews: Undecided. People have suggested
> > relabelling "draft"
> > as "author's notes". Also, perhaps get rid of them if Anthony
> > implements a system to mark what stories you don't want to review.
> > b. Tentative reviews: Some people don't see the need for them, most
> > people like having that option. I am convinceable on everything,
> > but I'll say upfront that it will take a lot of convincing for me
> > on this one. However, if you think having some reviews hidden is
> > bad for the awards - not just something you won't do - explain your
> > reasoning. Possibly change name to "hidden" to make purpose clearer.
>
> I had questioned the point of these, but defer to the many people who
> seem to find them useful. Are hidden reviews bad for the awards? I
> don't know...I prefer things to be visible/transparent, but whether
> there's any actual harm in them I'll let others decide.
>

I prefer transparency, too, unless there's a good reason to keep things
hidden. Some people seem to use these and have good reasons to use
them, so I would need quite a bit of convincing to want to do away with
tentative reviews.

My feelings as of now, after reading all the emails to date is this
(providing it's feasible):

1. Keep tentative and final.. Keep calling them that -- it seems to
underscore the fact that these things will in fact be counted, and
final reviews can't be edited.
2. Replace draft reviews with ability to mark nominations as "do not
review this piece" or "review this piece later".
3. Let reviewers delete their tentative reviews if they choose not to
review a story. (Before this was accomplished by switching review to
"draft".)

<snip>
> > 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> > a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> > Season.
>
> So have we definitely decided to merge reading and voting seasons?
> (which I'm in favor of, BTW)
>

I don't think that's been decided definitely. I want it, too, and I
guess that's worked its way into my thinking. (Sorry about that.)

<snip>
> > 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> > author) - Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
>
> I don't think any decision was made on this. I like Sulriel's idea of
> it being available in story details, but not "in your face."

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I think Sulriel's idea is a good
compromise, too.

> And I think *some* kind of voting message--if only "Vote early and
> often!" should be included with every official communication from the
> MEFAs. 
>

That's a good idea. I'll see if it's possible to add a tagline like
that to every group post. I know some groups do this, I just need to
figure out how it's done.

> Also, I think we could make more use of this Yahoo site (and now the
> LJ as well) as a bully pulpit...for example, I only saw the voter
> stats posted at the Stories of Arda Yahoo group, not here.  And that
> really woke me up more than anything, in terms of prompting me to
> vote more.  Certainly this group is the most targeted audience the
> MEFAs has...
>

Another good idea. This is definitely a good idea - I'll try to do this
more in the future, and if anyone sees something posted elsewhere, feel
free to post it 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)

> <snip>
> > 2. Types of Reviews
> > a. Draft reviews: Undecided. People have suggested relabelling
> > "draft" as "author's notes". Also, perhaps get rid of them if
> > Anthony implements a system to mark what stories you don't want to
> > review.
>
> Eummm shouldn't that be reviewer's notes?
>

> > b. Tentative reviews: Some people don't see the need for them, most
> > people like having that option. I am convinceable on everything, but
> > I'll say upfront that it will take a lot of convincing for me on
> > this one. However, if you think having some reviews hidden is bad
> > for the awards - not just something you won't do - explain your
> > reasoning. Possibly change name to "hidden" to make purpose clearer.
>
> Keep the tentative reviews, please. I sometimes need a bit more time
> to see if a review makes sense, I often let it rest for a while.
> Re-read it and finalised it.
>

> > 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> > a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> > Season.
> > b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> > Reading/Voting  Season.
> > c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the beginning
> > of Voting Season (September?)
> > d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.
>
> b. I found the wave of finalised reviews very overwhelming to be
> honest. I often received in my digest: message truncated.
>

> > 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> > author)- Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
>
> I don't know, but I am all for it. I saw also the suggestion to bury
> it a bit deeper in the system, I think this will help.
>
> <snip>
> So hiding the names of reviewers: no, keep them. Otherwise it will
> only create more unrest. What might help is to shield the nominators
> from the eye. Because actually, they don't add up to making things
> that transparent in that stage.

> > 8. How to encourage reviewers, even of small number of stories.
> > - This is another area I'm drawing a blank on. I know we were
> > talking about specific suggestions. Include any in this reply.
>
> I like Dreamflowers suggestion a lot. It does help to start
> communicating earlier.

> It also does help to communicate what is going
> on and explain why things are happening, assuming that people will
> remember how things went last year... it still leaves folks in the
> dark.
>

> 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.
>

> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you, and I do think you brought up
> some
> valid points. I'm not sure what "SSP" stands for, so I can't address
> that
> point. I certainly shouldn't have gotten sarcastic.

> 2. Types of Reviews
> > a. Draft reviews: Undecided. People have suggested relabelling
> "draft"
> > as "author's notes". Also, perhaps get rid of them if Anthony
> > implements a system to mark what stories you don't want to review.
> > b. Tentative reviews: Some people don't see the need for them, most
> > people like having that option. I am convinceable on everything, but
> > I'll say upfront that it will take a lot of convincing for me on
> this
> > one. However, if you think having some reviews hidden is bad for the
> > awards - not just something you won't do - explain your reasoning.
> > Possibly change name to "hidden" to make purpose clearer.
> > c. Final reviews: Will definitely continue to exist. Possibly change
> > name to "visible".
>
> a. I think Anthony's suggestions in the other thread look good, both
> for
> the "skip" and the "read me later" categories.
> b. Still like tentative reviews. Like them even better if the number
> shows.
> c. Yup.
>

> 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> > a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> > Season.
> > b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> Reading/Voting
> > Season.
> > c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the beginning
> of
> > Voting Season (September?)
> > d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.
>
> Happiest with option one, can certainly live with option two. Option
> three
> delayed *me* when it came to voting, this year and option four would
> make me
> horribly frustrated, especially if I had no idea of what kind of
> reviews
> other people were writing.
>

> 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> author)
> > - Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
>
> No, no, no, no, no. It keeps coming up and I keep saying no. If I
> find a
> good story, and I'm looking for something else to read, knowing who
> nominated it leads me to other good stories, even if I know nothing
> else
> about the nominator. And did. Keeping the nominator name visible
> keeps the
> process transparent, which is absolutely necessary for the contest to
> be
> perceived as fair. The only way I'd be happy with losing nominator
> information is if the awards went to completely being
> self-nominations (and
> that's an intriguing idea, indeed!)
>

> 8. How to encourage reviewers, even of small number of stories.
> > - This is another area I'm drawing a blank on. I know we were
> talking
> > about specific suggestions. Include any in this reply.
> >
> > If I'm missing something, let me know.
>
>   Start right out with some information about how many reviews were
> done by
> various reviewers last year in the publicity. Make it clear that no
> one, not
> even the admins, read and reviewed every single story. That takes the
> obligation away. Encourage people to follow the bread crumbs, to look
> at
> other stories which were nominated or reviewed by people who liked
> the same
> stories they liked, or to use the visible reviews to find other
> stories.

> CLEAN UP THE CATEGORY PROCESS (whoops, did I just hit a button?)

> and
> actively find ways to communicate with folks who don't/haven't/won't
> sign up
> for the Yahoo group.
>

> > 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> > a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during Reading/Voting
> > Season.
> > b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> Reading/Voting
> > Season.
> > c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the beginning
> of
> > Voting Season (September?)
> > d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.
>
> I like option "b".  This is a reasonable compromise that addresses 3
> concerns. (1) It makes the reviews available throughout the
> reading/voting
> season, which benefits those who want to see the reviews earlier (2)
> By
> doling them out in batches, it dilutes any possible "unfair
> advantage" held
> by one or two early reviews having too much influence and (3) We
> still get
> the psychological "bump" of seeing a number of reviews go up
> overnight--not
> in the hundreds, probably, but hopefully at least in the dozens

> > 8. How to encourage reviewers, even of small number of stories.
> > - This is another area I'm drawing a blank on. I know we were
> talking
> > about specific suggestions. Include any in this reply.
>
> I think having reviews show up earlier will be encouraging in and of
> itself.
> Here are a few other suggestions: pimping by individuals on LJs and
> webpages;

> for FAQs, perhaps include a "dummy page" with fake "reviews"
> showing everything from a lowly 1 or 2 pointer, then a mid-range
> review of
> say 4 or 5, and finally a 9 or 10 pointer--this could give people an
> idea of
> what to shoot for;

> include a page with various "voting strategies" that
> members in the past have come up with. 

> Also, I think if individual members
> will enthuse enough about the reviews they *did* get *this* year, or
> about
> what fun it was to *write* the reviews, it also might get some more
> response.
>

>
> > 7. Mask name of nominator on website (still include in email to
> > author)
> > > - Did we decide to do this? I'm honestly not sure.
> >
> > No, no, no, no, no. It keeps coming up and I keep saying no. If I
> > find a
> > good story, and I'm looking for something else to read, knowing who
> > nominated it leads me to other good stories, even if I know nothing
> > else
> > about the nominator. And did. Keeping the nominator name visible
> > keeps the
> > process transparent, which is absolutely necessary for the contest to
> > be
> > perceived as fair. The only way I'd be happy with losing nominator
> > information is if the awards went to completely being
> > self-nominations (and
> > that's an intriguing idea, indeed!)
> >
>
> I'm not crazy about the all-self-nominations. I've defended this
> earlier and will again if need be. I think self-nominations should be
> allowed and encouraged, but I don't want to limit it to just this.
>
> You may have said this elsewhere, but would you bde okay if the
> nominator was only available on the story details, rather than the
> general "browse nomiantions" page? So it was less in your face?

>
>
>
> > for FAQs, perhaps include a "dummy page" with fake "reviews"
> > showing everything from a lowly 1 or 2 pointer, then a mid-range
> > review of
> > say 4 or 5, and finally a 9 or 10 pointer--this could give people an
> > idea of
> > what to shoot for;
>
> I like this in principle but it needs to be structured so as not to
> make people feel bad if they can't write ten points.
>
> Would someone who can write 10 point reviews mind writing up three fake
> reviews? And perhaps someone who writes shorter reviews (perhaps maxing
> out at about 4-5) write similar reviews, but on a shorter point scale?
> Perhaps 1 pt, 2-3 pts, 4-5 pts?

> <snip>
> > > 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> > > a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during
> > > Reading/Voting Season.
> > > b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> > > Reading/Voting  Season.
> > > c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the
> > > beginning of Voting Season (September?)
> > > d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.

> > <Rhapsody said>
> > b. I found the wave of finalised reviews very overwhelming to be
> > honest. I often received in my digest: message truncated.
> >
> This may be a bit radical... but would it be better if we only
> posted that this week's reviews were now eligible, along with the
> authors (or titles) who had new reviews? It's a thought. I don't
> feel strongly one way or the other and will definitely go with what
> most people want.

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> > > > a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during
> > > > Reading/Voting Season.
> > > > b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> > > > Reading/Voting Season.
> > > > c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the
> > > > beginning of Voting Season (September?)
> > > > d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.
>
> > > <Rhapsody said>
> > > b. I found the wave of finalised reviews very overwhelming to
> > > be honest. I often received in my digest: message truncated.
> > >
> > This may be a bit radical... but would it be better if we only
> > posted that this week's reviews were now eligible, along with the
> > authors (or titles) who had new reviews? It's a thought. I don't
> > feel strongly one way or the other and will definitely go with
> > what most people want.
>
> Hi Marta,
>
> Do you mean, not post the actual reviews here at the Yahoo group?
> Oh, please don't do away with that! It really is the only thing that
> got me to read outside my box at all, and if you just posted the
> authors/titles that got reviewed I *know* I'd never go over to the
> site and look them up. I don't think Rhapsody was nixing option b
> (or Two), the weekly dump...I think she was supporting it (right,
> Rhapsody?). I think it was the third option--the single, massive
> dump on the first day of Voting Season--that she was saying she
> didn't like. (And neither did I...*those* reviews I didn't read!)

> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >   > 6. When to Make Final Reviews Visible
> > >  > a. Option One: Make them visible at any point during
> > >  > Reading/Voting Season.
> > >  > b. Option Two: Release them in weekly batches throughout
> > >  > Reading/Voting  Season.
> > >  > c. Option Three: (same as last year) release them at the
> > >  > beginning of Voting Season (September?)
> > >  > d. Option Four: keep all reviews hidden until voting closes.
>
> > >  <Rhapsody said>
> > >  b. I found the wave of finalised reviews very overwhelming to be
> > >  honest. I often received in my digest: message truncated.
> > >
> > This may be a bit radical... but would it be better if we only
> > posted that this week's reviews were now eligible, along with the
> > authors (or titles) who had new reviews?

> It's a thought. I don't
> > feel strongly one way or the other and will definitely go with what
> > most people want.
>
> Hi Marta,
>
> Do you mean, not post the actual reviews here at the Yahoo group? 
> Oh, please don't do away with that! It really is the only thing that
> got me to read outside my box at all, and if you just posted the
> authors/titles that got reviewed I *know* I'd never go over to the
> site and look them up. I don't think Rhapsody was nixing option b (or
> Two), the weekly dump...I think she was supporting it (right,
> Rhapsody?). I think it was the third option--the single, massive dump
> on the first day of Voting Season--that she was saying she didn't
> like. (And neither did I...*those* reviews I didn't read!)
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
<snip>
>> Do you mean, not post the actual reviews here at the Yahoo
>> group? Oh, please don't do away with that! It really is the only
>> thing that got me to read outside my box at all, and if you just
>> posted the authors/titles that got reviewed I *know* I'd never go
>> over to the site and look them up. I don't think Rhapsody was
>> nixing option b (or Two), the weekly dump...I think she was
>> supporting it (right, Rhapsody?). I think it was the third
>> option--the single, massive dump on the first day of Voting
>> Season--that she was saying she didn't like. (And neither did
>> I...*those* reviews I didn't read!)
>
> Okay, I like having the reviews posted to the Yahoo group myself. I
> just thought if it was too much email, I'd offer to reconsider it.
> But re-reading Rhapsody, I don't think that's what she was
> complaining about.

I was, like Kathy wrote above complaining about that. It was a big
flood, often I got: message truncated or the batch started with the
same reviews over again. I am sorry, but I am not skimming through
such a flood three times over.

Let it come in a nice dosage that the digest can handle. Often it felt
like an information dump to me. Unintended, I realise that, but I quit
reading them after a while. And that is an effect you do not want to
have because it puts people off.

Rhapsody

> I was, like Kathy wrote above complaining about that. It was a big
> flood, often I got: message truncated or the batch started with the
> same reviews over again. I am sorry, but I am not skimming through
> such a flood three times over.
>
> Let it come in a nice dosage that the digest can handle. Often it felt
> like an information dump to me. Unintended, I realise that, but I quit
> reading them after a while. And that is an effect you do not want to
> have because it puts people off.
>
> Rhapsody

>
> > I was, like Kathy wrote above complaining about that. It was a big
> > flood, often I got: message truncated or the batch started with

> > same reviews over again. I am sorry, but I am not skimming through
> > such a flood three times over.
> >
> > Let it come in a nice dosage that the digest can handle. Often it

> > like an information dump to me. Unintended, I realise that, but I

> > reading them after a while. And that is an effect you do not want

> > have because it puts people off.
> >
> > Rhapsody
>
> I stopped reading the reviews when there were more than ~50 reviews

> post. They all blurred together and tended to sound repetitive to

> skimmed a bit over what stories were reviewed, but I didn't have

> read them all. The worst were the initial posts. I tried to read

> gave up after a short while.
>
> Chris
>

> Hi Marta,
>
> I think the bottom line is that a huge batch of reviews in a single
> Yahoo group post can be overwhelming, at least to some of us (I think
> others found it exciting!), but to my recollection that happened just
> a few times this year: the first, initial post of reviews at the
> beginning of Voting Season, and then toward the end when everyone got
> into last-minute voting mode. But mostly I think it was more helpful
> to see them than not, and the new plan of releasing them weekly from
> the start of Reading/Voting Season in May should minimize
> the "massive dump" effect. 
>
> Kathy
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> I actually had the same problem, and still haven't read a lot of
those
> initial reviews.
>
> Would it help to have it broken down into a series of emails, with
25
> or so reviews to each email? So if there are 37 reviews in a
certain
> week, when I send those reviews to the list, I would send one email
> "Today's Reviews Pt 1" with 25 reviews, and a second "Today's
Reviews
> Pt 2" with 12 reviews. This wouldn't help those people on digest,
but I
> think it might help those who recieive individual emails or read at
the
> site.
>
> Marta
>