Yahoo Forum Archive

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

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

Msg# 6144

Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 08, 2005 - 12:29:43 Topic ID# 6144
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.

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)

Msg# 6154

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by sulriel November 08, 2005 - 20:02:57 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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.


> 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.

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


the ones I didn't reply to specifically, I agree with.

Sulriel

Msg# 6158

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by C Dodd November 08, 2005 - 20:31:46 Topic ID# 6144
On 11/7/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> 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'd go with twenty or twenty five for c.

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.


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

Msg# 6160

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by sulriel November 08, 2005 - 20:46:45 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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

Msg# 6161

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by aelfwina@cableone.net November 08, 2005 - 21:17:35 Topic ID# 6144
----- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6162

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Kathy November 08, 2005 - 21:56:06 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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...
>
> 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...
>
> 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.

> 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.

So have we definitely decided to merge reading and voting seasons?
(which I'm in favor of, BTW)

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

I like Option Two...it gets my vote.

> 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.

Really don't like Option Four.

> 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."
>
> 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 both Dwim and Sulriel discussed the content of a message
about the importance (and fun) of voting, to be posted on the various
sites and communities where we all hang out. Key here, I think,
would be doing it frequently, and much earlier than voting season.

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

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...

Kathy/Inkling

Msg# 6172

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 09, 2005 - 3:43:38 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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.

25-30

> 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.

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

Final is fine with me.

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

I agree :)

4. and 5. all agreed to.

> 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.

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.

I am not suggesting it to make a reviewers life so much harder, but in
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.

> 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.

Rhapsody

Msg# 6173

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by C Dodd November 09, 2005 - 6:59:13 Topic ID# 6144
> 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.

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.
(Yes, reading season made me impatient.)
You have a bit of a point about the shortlist of heavy reviewers. Could it
be answered by giving the data without names, and making sure to include the
numbers all the way down to the reviewer who has done one or two reviews.
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.

> 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.

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? Particularly with a limit on the
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 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.

I am not suggesting it to make a reviewers life so much harder, but in
> 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.

So it's better for an author to think that it's the story's fault it
didn't get reviews? (sarcasm!)
Now, I <i>did</i> feel I had control, as an author, over who nominated my
stuff, and in fact had to choose because I was asked permission to nominate
one story by two people. I didn't think in terms of "oh, that one's more
prestigious", I just checked the timestamp on the e-mails, but an author who
was concerned about the effect of the nominator's name (if there are any
authors who feel that way -- I still think they're theoretical) could choose
to self-nominate or wait for a better offer.

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.


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

Msg# 6178

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by sulriel November 09, 2005 - 9:03:23 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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? 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.
>
> 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.
> (Yes, reading season made me impatient.)
> You have a bit of a point about the shortlist of heavy reviewers.
Could it
> be answered by giving the data without names, and making sure to
include the
> numbers all the way down to the reviewer who has done one or two
reviews.
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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? Particularly with a limit on
the
> 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
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.
>
> I am not suggesting it to make a reviewers life so much harder,
but in
> > 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.
>
> So it's better for an author to think that it's the story's fault
it
> didn't get reviews? (sarcasm!)
> Now, I <i>did</i> feel I had control, as an author, over who
nominated my
> stuff, and in fact had to choose because I was asked permission to
nominate
> one story by two people. I didn't think in terms of "oh, that one's
more
> prestigious", I just checked the timestamp on the e-mails, but an
author who
> was concerned about the effect of the nominator's name (if there
are any
> authors who feel that way -- I still think they're theoretical)
could choose
> to self-nominate or wait for a better offer.
>
> 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.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Msg# 6179

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by sulriel November 09, 2005 - 9:09:29 Topic ID# 6144
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
>> 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?


I heard both. - and not self-centered whining, but real hurt and
self-doubt.

the first we can address. I think it's a simple matter of adding a
display field on the displayed report.

the second we can't do anything about.


>>>>If you know one of > these uncertain authors, please encourage
him or her to contribute to this> discussion,


maybe a good use for the anonymous comment box on the MEFA database
site. It doesn't log IPs or any identifying information. If there
is some comment that could be made that could help us understand and
help reduce this kind of hurt, people can comment there without fear
of how other list members might judge them.



>>> 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.>


I think this is an important point that needs to be emphasized.

It would be extremely difficult for any individual or group to
effectively lock in the MEFA awards.

If ANYONE is concerned that their favorite authors/stories/genre -
whatever - aren't getting the attention it needs .... There is a
very simple solution to that - go read and review for them. It can't
be any simplier. PLEASE DO rouse the masses and set them to
clicking links, reading and reviewing - that's the very basis of
these awards. The more participants read and review, the less impact
any individual or group of individuals can have.


Sulriel

Msg# 6180

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 09, 2005 - 9:34:15 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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

Msg# 6181

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by C Dodd November 09, 2005 - 10:05:35 Topic ID# 6144
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.
Just to be clear, I'd barely heard of the MEFAs before this year. I'm not
an admin, and other than a couple of hobbity people, I didn't know the names
of most of the active people before I started in. Heck, because you've been
so active at the Yahoo group, I thought YOU were one of the more experienced
and well known people here, and maybe even an admin!
Is some of your desire to mask nominators names coming from your experience
as a nominator? You nominated some very good stories, and although many were
outside my interests, I would have taken your name to be a "plus" on a story
which I was iffy about.
So much of the discussion about cliquishness and fragility of authors so
far has been theoretical that I'm afraid I've gotten impatient with
theories. I think that changes in the system should address problems which
have already arisen, not problems which might arise, and it sounds to me
like you, and the people you nominated, had real issues which haven't been
described in a way that is specific enough to help the decision making
process.
Now, if you'll let me know what SSP means, I'll see if I can address that
one.


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]

Msg# 6187

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by aelfwina@cableone.net November 09, 2005 - 11:15:58 Topic ID# 6144
----- 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6188

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Ainaechoiriel November 09, 2005 - 12:28:15 Topic ID# 6144
On cliquishness, nominating, and nominators

I really don't see how the group can be cliquish. If you post, you post.
Heck, I started the group and I haven't posted much in the last 7 months!
Does that make me part of the "out" crowd? Who are the "in" crowd? Heavy
posters? Well, post and you'll be in, too, I suppose. "Big fish" come and
go. I was a nobody, a newbie when I won my first ASC Award (top in my
category). I won that or something similar every other year for 8 years. I
became a big fish in that pond. People knew my name, even asked for my
autograph. Then I came to LOTR and was a guppy all over again. I might have
managed to move up to perch in HASA before I started the MEFAs, then that
made me a lurker and thus a guppy again. Maybe a minnow as a veteran.
Here, sure, I was the Whale Shark (hey, whales aren't fish!) last year, but
this year, maybe a coelecanth (however they are spelled, I think they are
still rarely seen). The "in"-ness is what you make of it. Lurk and you're
not likely to be considered a big fish. Post a lot and you will. Back off
and you won't be again.....

As to who nominated what, I, personally, never really cared. I went through
ALL the nominations, alphabetically, and decided on 1500 stories I'd like to
read based on their summaries. I didn't get around to reading the great
majority of those 1500 but who nominated them had NO bearing on if they made
it to my Want-to-Read list.

There was a poll, I believe, in the post-mortem last year about whether
nominators name should be showed or not. I don't think it was one of my
dictatorial or non-negotiable decisions. Me, I could go with only
self-nominations if I thought enough people would know about it. (Marta had
a decent point about why she wouldn't go with it, but I think that if
EVERYBODY is self-nominating, there goes the need for shyness. One reason I
self-nominated my own stories both years--and will do again if I have a
story to nominate next year.)

I think there are several reasons for stories not being read. Take no
offense here. I'm not naming stories to match with these reasons. Heck, I
think I read less than 40.

1) It was read but not reviewed because, honestly, readres couldn't find
anything good to say. As I mentioned before, as with the ASC awards,
sometimes there is drek. When you have loose nominations, you are going to
get some drek.
2) Too many nominations, not enough time. In life. Last year we had
573-ish. It was doable. I think I read nearly every story I wanted to read.
Okay, I wasn't getting engaged so I had more RL time last year, but we did
more than double the number of nominations in one year. Which is great!
Just not terribly practical. Thus the suggestion, and the passing of the
poll, on limiting the total number of nominations.
3) RL. Real Life smacks everyone in the head at some point. Some of it's
good (like meeting the man I'm going to marry) and some of it's bad (my
brother-in-law died and today is his birthday). Yes, it can be sheer
coincidence that every reviewer who planned to read a given story got
smacked in the head by RL issues. Really, it could happen. Someone who
likes math can do the numbers on that one.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to show a number of tentative reviews to the
authors (not on the Nominated Stories list but on each author's list of
their own stories) as some encouragement. Or not.

If 1) can be true, there will undoubtedly be some broken hearts. There are
a lot of drek stories out on ff.net that get hundreds of reviews, but may
not get a single review here. If 3) happens, well, there's nothing to do
but grin and bear it. Priorties are priorities and as much as I LOVE LOTR,
fanfiction and feedback--and these awards and the awards they were based on,
getting married does take precidence. And so will adopting a child. So will
then, being a mom. Each person much be free to choose their own level of
involvement even if that level changes throughout the year.

2), though, we can do something about. We want lots of nominations, true.
But it still needs to be practical. We need to be able to read what we've
nominated and this year, to me, seemed too much. Someone who didn't get
smacked by RL may have a better perspective on it, though.

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder
Like the coelecanth, not extinct, though at times it may seem that way

"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said, "for
it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.

http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards

Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com

Msg# 6192

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Kathy November 09, 2005 - 16:09:09 Topic ID# 6144
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what "SSP" stands for, so I can't address that
> point.

"SSP" stands for "shameless self-promotion." As I understand it, it's
generally used in a tongue-in-cheek way, and I don't think there's any
stigma attached to it. In some groups it's routinely included in the
subject line to alert readers to a new story announcement. I guess it
can also apply to other kinds of self-promotion, but I've most often
seen it used (and used it myself) in connection with story
announcements.

Kathy (Inkling)

Msg# 6208

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 21:52:53 Topic ID# 6144
Hi sulriel,

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)

Msg# 6209

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 21:52:57 Topic ID# 6144
Hi Kathy,

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)

Msg# 6212

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 21:53:01 Topic ID# 6144
On 9 Nov 2005, at 04:42, rhapsody_the_bard wrote:

> <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?
>

That it should be! Thanks for pointing that out.

> > 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.
>

Yes, I like tentative reviews for this reason if nothing else. This
year I was the one who often edited the final reviews, so anything that
cuts down on that will help me personally. Not that it's that hard, of
course.

<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.
>
> 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.

> > 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.

I honestly don't know about this. I agree that nominator's names need
to be made less obvious (though prolly not completely hidden).
Reviewer's identity... well, I just don't know. I can see how it might
create the impression of a clique toward the beginning, if it looks
like 2-3 reviewers are reviewing the same author's pieces (perhaps
because they're at the top of whatever list they're working from). I
can see advantages and disadvantages to either way. That's why I was in
favor of releasing them later, where hopefully there will be more
reviews so less appearnace of cliquishness.

> > 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.

I agree, I like that, too.

> 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.
>

I will always try to assume people deon't know what happened in
previous years. I just can't keep up with who was involved from one
year to the next reliably. However, do keep in mind that *I* have been
doing this for two years and explaining it to other people for one. So
it may be that it doesn't occur to me that something needs explaining.

My point: if something needs an explanation, *please* ask. There are no
stupid questions as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to anticipate those
trouble spots, but I may just not see them.

Cheers,
Marta

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

(Nelson Mandela)

Msg# 6213

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 21:53:03 Topic ID# 6144
> 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.
>

Well, we already have the ability to filter the reviews by reviewer. If
I understand this right, it means you can select a name from the
drop-down list and display all the reviews by that reviewer, which I
think would have the same affect as being able to search. Wouldn't it?
Or am I misunderstanding your request?

Cheers,
Marta

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

(Nelson Mandela)

Msg# 6214

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 21:53:05 Topic ID# 6144
On 9 Nov 2005, at 11:05, C Dodd wrote:

> 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.

Just hitting this one point...

SSP = Shameless Self-Promotion. The idea is if you post your story to
StoriesofArda.com , you might send an email to the [Stories_of_Arda]
listserv announcing that you have a new story. Basiclaly it's anything
you do to draw extra attention to your story.

I ahve no problem SSP'ing my work but can understand how some authors
would feel uneasy doing this.

Cheers,
Marta

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

(Nelson Mandela)

Msg# 6215

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 21:53:09 Topic ID# 6144
On 8 Nov 2005, at 21:31, C Dodd wrote:

> 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.
>

I agree with all of these things, personally. Except that I'm leaning
toward keeping the label "final" rather than just "visible".

> 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.
>

It seems that most people can live with option two, unless I'm missing
some of what people are saying.

> 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?

> 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.

All good suggestions.

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

Well, you hit on the next major topic. Get your thoughts in line,
because this will be the next topic as soon as we nail down nomination
limit.

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

Now we have the LJ community, and I plan to make announcements there
just like some people already do to various communities and forums
besides this Yahoo group. That brings up an important point: if you're
a member of a list where someone isn't making MEFA announcements and
want to do this, let us know. It's not that hard (usually someone else
is writing a post), you really just have to field responses and the
other volunteers can help you with the answers if you don't really
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)

Msg# 6216

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 09, 2005 - 21:54:46 Topic ID# 6144
<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.
>
> 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

Good ennumeration of why I like this option so much. ;-)

<snip>
> > 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;

We already do this, but should perhaps do it at more places and more
often. Good point.

> 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?

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

This is a good idea. If anyone wants to make my life easier, email me
your voting strategies privately. I'll compile them into a page like
this and will remove the names. You can just copy-and-paste what you've
already posted to this group if that's easiest.

> 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.
>

Excellent idea. By all means do this everyone.

Cheers,
Marta

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

(Nelson Mandela)

Msg# 6219

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by C Dodd November 09, 2005 - 22:37:23 Topic ID# 6144
On 11/9/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> 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.
> >
> > 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?

You couldn't search by nominator this year, unless you used the "find"
functionality anyway. But I'd be really unhappy if I couldn't check for
other nominations by someone who had recommended a really top notch story in
an easy way, and what folks are describing sounds like I'd have to go to
each story's individual page and hunt up nominators one by freaking one.
Think of it this way. I'm reading along, and I find a really great Samfic
that has a knockout characterisation of Aragorn. Hooyah! My day is good.
Later on, I'm trying to find good Aragorn stories so I check out that author
again and I find out that the only other story they've got in contention is
a drabble about Smeagol's granny. One trail dead, but waitaminute, the
person who nominated that Samfic might like scruffy Rangers too. Her name's
SuzyQueue so I do a quick "find" search for the name SuzyQueue and sure
enough, one of the other stories she's submitted is about Aragorn and the
twins by someone I've never heard of. I'm not wild about twinfics, but
because I've followed the breadcrumb trail this far I click on the link
anyway and if I'm lucky I find another knockout characterisation of Aragorn
and the author gets a review that wouldn't have had any chance of happening
if I was going by the summary alone.
Now the details were different, but the basic scenario happened to me at
least four times and on three of those occasions I found a story I liked
well enough to read and review and twice I found authors that had written
other stories I liked as well. One of my favorite stories in the awards I
found by following breadcrumbs, and I don't want to lose that.
Howsabout you put the nominators name in there on the "browse stories"
page, either in the author column or the story description but you put it in
a much smaller font? It can still be searched by the "find" function, but
it's not so much "in your face".


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

Msg# 6221

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by C Dodd November 09, 2005 - 22:53:18 Topic ID# 6144
Oh, yeah, and the all self-nominations was someone else's idea, although I
don't remember whose this late at night. It seemed intriguing, but
impractical, at least at this point. I'm old and cynical enough to be
comfortable with pushing my own stuff out there to be seen, but I doubt
everyone is.


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

Msg# 6222

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by C Dodd November 09, 2005 - 22:56:45 Topic ID# 6144
On 11/9/05, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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?

Why not just use examples from previous years, with the permission of the
reviewer, of course and provide URLs so people could go and see the reviews
in context if they were so inclined?


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

Msg# 6223

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Kathy November 10, 2005 - 0:45:45 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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!)

Kathy (Inkling)

Msg# 6228

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 10, 2005 - 9:20:35 Topic ID# 6144
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...> wrote:
>
> --- 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!)

Yeps, that is completely correct Kathy. It was overwhelming and
contra-productive (for me it was), with option 3. Just let them come
when they are finalised during reading season (option 2). Gradually,
just to give people that nudge, vibe to go and review themselves. Also
I have read that people think I want to hide reviewers: this is
completely *not* what *I* meant. Keep them in sight all times because
they add postively to the transparancy of voting/reading season. It is
the nominators that I don't see the extra added value of it once
nomination season is over.

Why? Because reviewers give you more insight or that stimula to read a
story then a name of a nominator. A reviewer tells you what they
thought of it and can make you go like yay, gotta read that (I hope).
A name doesn't say that much to me, warm and encouraging words from a
reviewer do and add immensly to the feel good awards-feeling.

Rhapsody

Msg# 6252

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 12, 2005 - 20:56:55 Topic ID# 6144
On 10 Nov 2005, at 01:45, Kathy wrote:

> --- 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?

I meant visible, not eligible above - brain slip.

> 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!)
>

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.

So we'll keep posting reviews to the Yahoo group, not just titles and
so on.

Marta

Msg# 6253

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 13, 2005 - 16:36:49 Topic ID# 6144
--- 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

Msg# 6254

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Chris Grzonka November 13, 2005 - 17:04:59 Topic ID# 6144
> 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 stopped reading the reviews when there were more than ~50 reviews in one
post. They all blurred together and tended to sound repetitive to me. I
skimmed a bit over what stories were reviewed, but I didn't have time to
read them all. The worst were the initial posts. I tried to read them but
gave up after a short while.

Chris

Msg# 6255

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Kathy November 13, 2005 - 18:04:18 Topic ID# 6144
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, "Chris Grzonka" <grzonka@a...>
wrote:
>
> > 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 stopped reading the reviews when there were more than ~50 reviews
in one
> post. They all blurred together and tended to sound repetitive to
me. I
> skimmed a bit over what stories were reviewed, but I didn't have
time to
> read them all. The worst were the initial posts. I tried to read
them but
> gave up after a short while.
>
> Chris
>

Msg# 6256

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Marta Layton November 13, 2005 - 18:26:54 Topic ID# 6144
On 13 Nov 2005, at 19:03, Kathy wrote:

> 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
>

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

Msg# 6257

Re: Summary of Topics Addressed so Far Posted by Kathy November 13, 2005 - 18:32:27 Topic ID# 6144
Sounds good to me...

Kathy (who reads at the site)

--- 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
>