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.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | - | - | - | 182 | 1042 | 655 | 89 | 25 | 263 | 362 | 316 | 285 |
| 2005 | 189 | 56 | 107 | 538 | 347 | 446 | 97 | 276 | 194 | 358 | 565 | 136 |
| 2006 | 231 | 66 | 27 | 76 | 117 | 139 | 127 | 56 | 67 | 66 | 159 | 79 |
| 2007 | 20 | 25 | 7 | - | 29 | 72 | 99 | 143 | 3 | 185 | 83 | 103 |
| 2008 | 56 | 13 | 3 | 54 | 240 | 141 | 274 | 77 | 51 | 60 | 90 | 106 |
| 2009 | 28 | 3 | - | 39 | 194 | 101 | 72 | 27 | 22 | 15 | 36 | 24 |
| 2010 | 67 | - | 1 | 4 | 103 | 138 | 129 | 32 | 13 | 16 | 3 | 30 |
| 2011 | 1 | - | 17 | 2 | 6 | 25 | 90 | 61 | 32 | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| 2012 | 30 | - | - | - | 8 | 122 | 76 | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2013 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2014 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | 2 |
| 2015 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2016 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2017 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2018 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2019 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - |
Msg# 6291
Categorisation - Replies Posted by Marta Layton November 15, 2005 - 19:04:46 Topic ID# 6291Hey guys,
Iıve read all of the posts as of about 8 PM Eastern, and people are
throwing out a lot of good ideas. But I think itıs important that we
keep our eyes on the goal here. In my mind thatıs keeping things as
simple and easy to use as possible while accomplishing what it is we
want to accomplish with this part of the awards. And thereıs the
problem: I think some of us want the categorizing to accomplish
different things.
Should the categories place stories in groups that are comparable
enough that itıs a fair competition? Or should the categories be
guiding the readers toward stories theyıre likely to enjoy? I think
both of these are good goals, but if we try to do both through the
categorization weıll end up with something that doesnıt do either as
well as it should.
Since categories are by definition a set of stories that we will rank,
identifying the highest-scoring ones in the bunch, I think it makes the
most sense to focus on the first question. If we want to help readers
find stories about their favourite characters, or set in their
favourite kingdoms, etc., we need to think about how to do that.
Anthony, at the risk of suggesting more work for you, would it be
possible to have the author provide the key characters and the time in
which itıs set and providing those as filter options? So someone could
find all the stories involving (for example) Merry and Pippin post-Ring
War? This could provide the readers a way to find stories and let us
focus on making sure that the stories in a certain sub-category are
really comparable.
Now on to some specifics...
Sulriel...
<< Iıd highly recommend having a set list and LETTING THE AUTHOR PICK
the category and first, second and third choice of subcate, and an text
field for ıotherı. >>
There was a thread earlier this year (before the post-mort) where we
decided that the nominator would provide only the title, author name,
author email, and URL, and that the author would provide the rest of
the info. This would include the categories and subcategories.
Rabidsamfan...
I think what you are suggesting has some merit, but itıs a pretty
radical set of changes from what Ainae came up with when she came up
with these awards back in 2004. In many ways they might actually be
better than what we have now. Theyıd certainly put similar stories in
the same categories, though the set-up might be difficult to explain.
But since itıs such a big change, Iım not comfortable making it because
I like it. This is a case where Iım going to defer to Ainae. If sheıs
okay with it then we can discuss it some more.
Ainae...
<< Now, I admit that categorizatino this year was a nightmare and a
half. Made 2004 look like a milk run by comparison. But it think ithe
problem is more in method than in setup. >>
I think the problem is in both. Granted, categorization was hard. We
need to get used to the new website and use it better than we did this
year. And we also need more guidance on how to make subcategories; this
year each categorizer basically did it their own way.
But I also think thereıs a real problem with the categorization scheme.
Authors and nominators were confused. It created subcategories in
different categories that were too similar like Rohan: Romance and
Romance: Rohan (frankly, if I have to defend that one more time...
well, toward the end of the competition I was getting pretty annoyed by
this question. Not because it was a bad one, but because it seemed like
everyone had it, and I was having to give a ıparty lineı answer that I
didnıt fully buy into myself.)
So I think we need better categorization system *and* fewer categories.
<< yes there are a lot of categories and yes, sojemtimes they seem
redundant or confusing. But Rhapsody hit the nail on the head for why
I set them up that way. Some people think in therms of "I write Elf
stories". Some think in terms of "I'm a Silm-ficcer. >>
Ainae, I don't think this is a good basis for categorizing. And I mean
that in the best way. But see above. This may be the way people think
of their stories, but it's not the best way to compare stories. Because
we end up with a "Elves: First Age" subcategory, and a load of stories
in "The Silmarillion" about First Age Elves. So the awards come to mean
less. If my piece wins first place in "Elves: First Age", it doesn't
mean that it's the best of all the pieces about First Age Elves that
were nominated this year ı just the best out of those that ended up in
that particular subcategory.
<< I think a list of subcategories would be good but we'd have to be
VERY good at putting together that list. >>
I think it's doable, though. We have two years of subcategories to work
as examples. And Anthony, is there a reason we couldn't add a
subcategory later? Let's say someone wants a specific subcategory that
isn't in the list ı could they pass that on to their liaison, who could
then pass it along to you (or someone else who's helping with
maintenance, if that's possible) and we could add on to the list from
that point?
<< And length as category will always be debated here. Some like it,
some hate it with apassion. Me, I hate it. Dwim put forth a good
reason why she wouldn't vote for it: In the essence of time, she'd
skip all the long-stories. >>
See, this is one of the main reasons why I am a big fan of categorizing
by length. In fact, I think it's one of the first things we should try
to categorise by. Because if I open up a piece with more than 5
chapters I'm probably not going to read it, especially if I don't know
the author. And especially if it's late in voting season and I'm tight
on time. Put these in a category with shorter stories, and you're going
to get more people reading and voting for shorter stories. If longer
pieces are in their own subcategory, then they're more likely to get
fair competition, because they're not competing against shorter stories
who *because* their shorter will be getting more people reading them
just for these awards.
On will nominations actually decrease? (I think this was Inkling and
Rhapsody)...
A major goal of the limit was to keep the number of nominations down.
Sure, this may not work, but I think we need to think about what
happens if it does actually work. And I think it will be easier to deal
with categories being too big than categories being too small. If
categories are too big, we can still break out a graduated category, or
we can put in more subcategories than we would have otherwise. If
categories are too small, there's more juggling and more chance of more
stories getting into their second- and third-choice categories.
This may not be the best way to handle the potential problem. And I
think if we went with just the Books/Time categories this would be too
much of a reduction. I just don't want us to be facing a big problem
next May because we have lots more orphaned stories (ones where their
first-choice categories aren't viable) than we did this last year.
Dwim...
<< Actually, maybe this would be a good idea for this discussion? Give
us a proposed e-amil form, then append the explanation? >>
I think this is a good idea ı but unfortunately it's an idea that I
really don't have the energy to see through right now. Would someone be
willing to handle this? Maybe a liaison from last year could post what
we sent to new authors and take responsibility for recording the
changes we choose to make? Is anyone interested in handling this.
And I think that's it. At least it's as much as I can handle right now.
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.
Marta
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Iıve read all of the posts as of about 8 PM Eastern, and people are
throwing out a lot of good ideas. But I think itıs important that we
keep our eyes on the goal here. In my mind thatıs keeping things as
simple and easy to use as possible while accomplishing what it is we
want to accomplish with this part of the awards. And thereıs the
problem: I think some of us want the categorizing to accomplish
different things.
Should the categories place stories in groups that are comparable
enough that itıs a fair competition? Or should the categories be
guiding the readers toward stories theyıre likely to enjoy? I think
both of these are good goals, but if we try to do both through the
categorization weıll end up with something that doesnıt do either as
well as it should.
Since categories are by definition a set of stories that we will rank,
identifying the highest-scoring ones in the bunch, I think it makes the
most sense to focus on the first question. If we want to help readers
find stories about their favourite characters, or set in their
favourite kingdoms, etc., we need to think about how to do that.
Anthony, at the risk of suggesting more work for you, would it be
possible to have the author provide the key characters and the time in
which itıs set and providing those as filter options? So someone could
find all the stories involving (for example) Merry and Pippin post-Ring
War? This could provide the readers a way to find stories and let us
focus on making sure that the stories in a certain sub-category are
really comparable.
Now on to some specifics...
Sulriel...
<< Iıd highly recommend having a set list and LETTING THE AUTHOR PICK
the category and first, second and third choice of subcate, and an text
field for ıotherı. >>
There was a thread earlier this year (before the post-mort) where we
decided that the nominator would provide only the title, author name,
author email, and URL, and that the author would provide the rest of
the info. This would include the categories and subcategories.
Rabidsamfan...
I think what you are suggesting has some merit, but itıs a pretty
radical set of changes from what Ainae came up with when she came up
with these awards back in 2004. In many ways they might actually be
better than what we have now. Theyıd certainly put similar stories in
the same categories, though the set-up might be difficult to explain.
But since itıs such a big change, Iım not comfortable making it because
I like it. This is a case where Iım going to defer to Ainae. If sheıs
okay with it then we can discuss it some more.
Ainae...
<< Now, I admit that categorizatino this year was a nightmare and a
half. Made 2004 look like a milk run by comparison. But it think ithe
problem is more in method than in setup. >>
I think the problem is in both. Granted, categorization was hard. We
need to get used to the new website and use it better than we did this
year. And we also need more guidance on how to make subcategories; this
year each categorizer basically did it their own way.
But I also think thereıs a real problem with the categorization scheme.
Authors and nominators were confused. It created subcategories in
different categories that were too similar like Rohan: Romance and
Romance: Rohan (frankly, if I have to defend that one more time...
well, toward the end of the competition I was getting pretty annoyed by
this question. Not because it was a bad one, but because it seemed like
everyone had it, and I was having to give a ıparty lineı answer that I
didnıt fully buy into myself.)
So I think we need better categorization system *and* fewer categories.
<< yes there are a lot of categories and yes, sojemtimes they seem
redundant or confusing. But Rhapsody hit the nail on the head for why
I set them up that way. Some people think in therms of "I write Elf
stories". Some think in terms of "I'm a Silm-ficcer. >>
Ainae, I don't think this is a good basis for categorizing. And I mean
that in the best way. But see above. This may be the way people think
of their stories, but it's not the best way to compare stories. Because
we end up with a "Elves: First Age" subcategory, and a load of stories
in "The Silmarillion" about First Age Elves. So the awards come to mean
less. If my piece wins first place in "Elves: First Age", it doesn't
mean that it's the best of all the pieces about First Age Elves that
were nominated this year ı just the best out of those that ended up in
that particular subcategory.
<< I think a list of subcategories would be good but we'd have to be
VERY good at putting together that list. >>
I think it's doable, though. We have two years of subcategories to work
as examples. And Anthony, is there a reason we couldn't add a
subcategory later? Let's say someone wants a specific subcategory that
isn't in the list ı could they pass that on to their liaison, who could
then pass it along to you (or someone else who's helping with
maintenance, if that's possible) and we could add on to the list from
that point?
<< And length as category will always be debated here. Some like it,
some hate it with apassion. Me, I hate it. Dwim put forth a good
reason why she wouldn't vote for it: In the essence of time, she'd
skip all the long-stories. >>
See, this is one of the main reasons why I am a big fan of categorizing
by length. In fact, I think it's one of the first things we should try
to categorise by. Because if I open up a piece with more than 5
chapters I'm probably not going to read it, especially if I don't know
the author. And especially if it's late in voting season and I'm tight
on time. Put these in a category with shorter stories, and you're going
to get more people reading and voting for shorter stories. If longer
pieces are in their own subcategory, then they're more likely to get
fair competition, because they're not competing against shorter stories
who *because* their shorter will be getting more people reading them
just for these awards.
On will nominations actually decrease? (I think this was Inkling and
Rhapsody)...
A major goal of the limit was to keep the number of nominations down.
Sure, this may not work, but I think we need to think about what
happens if it does actually work. And I think it will be easier to deal
with categories being too big than categories being too small. If
categories are too big, we can still break out a graduated category, or
we can put in more subcategories than we would have otherwise. If
categories are too small, there's more juggling and more chance of more
stories getting into their second- and third-choice categories.
This may not be the best way to handle the potential problem. And I
think if we went with just the Books/Time categories this would be too
much of a reduction. I just don't want us to be facing a big problem
next May because we have lots more orphaned stories (ones where their
first-choice categories aren't viable) than we did this last year.
Dwim...
<< Actually, maybe this would be a good idea for this discussion? Give
us a proposed e-amil form, then append the explanation? >>
I think this is a good idea ı but unfortunately it's an idea that I
really don't have the energy to see through right now. Would someone be
willing to handle this? Maybe a liaison from last year could post what
we sent to new authors and take responsibility for recording the
changes we choose to make? Is anyone interested in handling this.
And I think that's it. At least it's as much as I can handle right now.
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.
Marta
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hey all!
Just me jumping in with my two cents. I think I might end up being the minority party again in a few instances, but I still want to respond to some things:
Or let's say we decide to keep genres. Where are you going to put the the stories that explore a specific race and encompass humor, drama, and action? Or the epic Silmarillion stories that have such a different idea of drama than the post-Ring War stories?
Let's try to keep races/places, then. There are stories out there that focus on villains, elves, dwarves, hobbits, men, Gondor, Rohan, Eriador, Menegroth, Gondolin, etc. But I would say that a majority of the stories encompass many different races. Are you going to force them all to compete in Cross-Cultural? It would completely overwhelm the other categories. And where in this would you put a category like Non-Fiction?
There is virtue in simplicity, but there is danger in simplifying too much. And I think that might be happening here. I'm all for streamlining the categories, and I wasn't overly fond of the Romance: Rohan and Rohan: Romance fiasco. But I don't think you can solve the problem by eliminating two divisions. I think what you'll end up doing is creating monster subcategories out of divisions that have been eliminated and some of those will become graduated subcategories in their own right, which throws in the eliminated divisions and you're back where you started.
One possible solution (and it needs to be hammered out and debated) would be to put greater emphasis on the divisions themselves. As they stand right now, they don't really mean anything. It's the categories that seem to matter. There were complaints about Romance: Rohan and Rohan: Romance, but I haven't heard any complaints about the fact that there was a Gap-Filler: Drabble, a Silmarillion: Drabble, a Dwarves: Drabble, a Drama: Drabble, a Humor: Drabble, etc. Why? Because the structural importance of categories as degrees of separation has been emphasized to the point where people accept the idea that humorous drabbles should only compete against other humorous drabbles while dwarven drabbles should only compete against other dwarven drabbles.
I think we might be able to do the same thing with the divisions. They really don't serve any clear purpose right now other than to guide the definition of each category. But if we made it clearer that the three divisions are in fact just that (divisions), then we wouldn't end up with a Rohan: Romance and Romance: Rohan. We'd end up with a Races/Places: Rohan Romance and a Genre: Rohan Romance. Stories in Races/Places would focus on Rohirrim or Rohan. Stories in Genre would focus on the style of writing that lends itself toward a romantic story. The plot and the actual romance would be more important than the culture of the people involved.
To do this, though, would require a mindset change, which is why I'm a little hesitant to suggest it. It would probably also require some programming changes to back up that mindset change and to make clear to newcomers that there are DIVISIONS instead of just categories with division headings. For example, when sorting stories, we might want to consider creating a filter that would sort by division. At present, we can only sort by category or subcategory. And I'd probably fall back on Rabidsamfan's idea of methodology in the nominating process. The author should be asked to consider whether his/her story is more about genre, race/place, or books/time. And when they come to that decision, they should then go to whatever division they've chosen and select from the appropriate categories.
Yes, there are logistical problems with this. Yes, some stories will still be difficult to place because they fall into all three divisions. But why have divisions if we're not going to use them? I think eliminating them is not our best option, thus the obvious alternative seems to be to make greater use of them. At least, that's how I see it.
Oh, and I echo Marta's sentiments on sorting by length. We've got a separate subcategory for drabbles. I'm still in favor of making *some* kind of distinction between vignettes, short stories, and long, chaptered stories.
Thundera
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
As a way of life, reality is highly overrated.
DahakıHercules: The Legendary Journeys
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Just me jumping in with my two cents. I think I might end up being the minority party again in a few instances, but I still want to respond to some things:
>> Should the categories place stories in groups that are comparableWhich is a good point, but I'd caution you on completely excluding one in order to facilitate the other. Maybe it's the politicall scientist in me coming out, but it seems to me that middle ground which manages to achieve at least part of both objectives is better than something that accomplishes one but completely fails at accomplishing the other. Because as you put it, both are good goals. There has to be a compromise position in here somewhere.
>> enough that itıs a fair competition? Or should the categories be
>> guiding the readers toward stories theyıre likely to enjoy? I think
>> both of these are good goals, but if we try to do both through the
>> categorization weıll end up with something that doesnıt do either
>> as well as it should.
>> Rabidsamfan...And for that last part alone, I'd hesitate. I got the gist of what was being suggested, and I'm intrigued. But as an author liason, I saw plenty of confusion with this year's setup, and the fact that I still can't fully comprehend what Rabidsamfan was suggesting makes me hesitate. I'm with Dwim. I'd like to see this simplified and put in an email instruction format before we explore the idea further.
>>
>> I think what you are suggesting has some merit, but itıs a pretty
>> radical set of changes from what Ainae came up with when she came
>> up with these awards back in 2004. In many ways they might actually
>> be better than what we have now. Theyıd certainly put similar
>> stories in the same categories, though the set-up might be
>> difficult to explain.
>> But I also think thereıs a real problem with the categorizationI agree that this was a problem, but what I don't agree with is the eliminating of one of the three big divisions (races/places, book/time, and genre). More on that later, though.
>> scheme. Authors and nominators were confused. It created
>> subcategories in different categories that were too similar like
>> Rohan: Romance and Romance: Rohan (frankly, if I have to defend
>> that one more time... well, toward the end of the competition I was
>> getting pretty annoyed by this question. Not because it was a bad
>> one, but because it seemed like everyone had it, and I was having
>> to give a ıparty lineı answer that I didnıt fully buy into myself.)
>> Ainae, I don't think this is a good basis for categorizing. And II have to echo what both Ainae and Rhaposody have said. I don't think you can eliminate the three divisions. Let's say we decide to keep books/time. What are you going to do about the stories that focus primarily on the villains and don't seem to have a set place in time? What about the books that span several times? And what are you going to do about the AU stories? The modern day stories? The movieverse stories that don't quite match up with the books' timeline?
>> mean that in the best way. But see above. This may be the way
>> people think of their stories, but it's not the best way to compare
>> stories. Because we end up with a "Elves: First Age" subcategory,
>> and a load of stories in "The Silmarillion" about First Age Elves.
>> So the awards come to mean less. If my piece wins first place
>> in "Elves: First Age", it doesn't mean that it's the best of all
>> the pieces about First Age Elves that were nominated this year ı
>> just the best out of those that ended up in that particular
>> subcategory.
Or let's say we decide to keep genres. Where are you going to put the the stories that explore a specific race and encompass humor, drama, and action? Or the epic Silmarillion stories that have such a different idea of drama than the post-Ring War stories?
Let's try to keep races/places, then. There are stories out there that focus on villains, elves, dwarves, hobbits, men, Gondor, Rohan, Eriador, Menegroth, Gondolin, etc. But I would say that a majority of the stories encompass many different races. Are you going to force them all to compete in Cross-Cultural? It would completely overwhelm the other categories. And where in this would you put a category like Non-Fiction?
There is virtue in simplicity, but there is danger in simplifying too much. And I think that might be happening here. I'm all for streamlining the categories, and I wasn't overly fond of the Romance: Rohan and Rohan: Romance fiasco. But I don't think you can solve the problem by eliminating two divisions. I think what you'll end up doing is creating monster subcategories out of divisions that have been eliminated and some of those will become graduated subcategories in their own right, which throws in the eliminated divisions and you're back where you started.
One possible solution (and it needs to be hammered out and debated) would be to put greater emphasis on the divisions themselves. As they stand right now, they don't really mean anything. It's the categories that seem to matter. There were complaints about Romance: Rohan and Rohan: Romance, but I haven't heard any complaints about the fact that there was a Gap-Filler: Drabble, a Silmarillion: Drabble, a Dwarves: Drabble, a Drama: Drabble, a Humor: Drabble, etc. Why? Because the structural importance of categories as degrees of separation has been emphasized to the point where people accept the idea that humorous drabbles should only compete against other humorous drabbles while dwarven drabbles should only compete against other dwarven drabbles.
I think we might be able to do the same thing with the divisions. They really don't serve any clear purpose right now other than to guide the definition of each category. But if we made it clearer that the three divisions are in fact just that (divisions), then we wouldn't end up with a Rohan: Romance and Romance: Rohan. We'd end up with a Races/Places: Rohan Romance and a Genre: Rohan Romance. Stories in Races/Places would focus on Rohirrim or Rohan. Stories in Genre would focus on the style of writing that lends itself toward a romantic story. The plot and the actual romance would be more important than the culture of the people involved.
To do this, though, would require a mindset change, which is why I'm a little hesitant to suggest it. It would probably also require some programming changes to back up that mindset change and to make clear to newcomers that there are DIVISIONS instead of just categories with division headings. For example, when sorting stories, we might want to consider creating a filter that would sort by division. At present, we can only sort by category or subcategory. And I'd probably fall back on Rabidsamfan's idea of methodology in the nominating process. The author should be asked to consider whether his/her story is more about genre, race/place, or books/time. And when they come to that decision, they should then go to whatever division they've chosen and select from the appropriate categories.
Yes, there are logistical problems with this. Yes, some stories will still be difficult to place because they fall into all three divisions. But why have divisions if we're not going to use them? I think eliminating them is not our best option, thus the obvious alternative seems to be to make greater use of them. At least, that's how I see it.
Oh, and I echo Marta's sentiments on sorting by length. We've got a separate subcategory for drabbles. I'm still in favor of making *some* kind of distinction between vignettes, short stories, and long, chaptered stories.
Thundera
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
As a way of life, reality is highly overrated.
DahakıHercules: The Legendary Journeys
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Msg# 6293
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by dwimmer\_laik November 15, 2005 - 21:17:11 Topic ID# 6291> Oh, and I echo Marta's sentiments on sorting by length. We've got aseparate subcategory for drabbles. I'm still in favor of making *some*
kind of distinction between vignettes, short stories, and long,
chaptered stories.
Quick reply:
I don't mind having a length filter. Sometimes, that is very useful.
However, I would hate to see *categories* based on length. "Novels" as
a category would never get read as a category. Having longer pieces
interspersed with shorter ones made me more likely to open a longer
piece because I felt as if I was making progress towards the end of
the category (thanks to reading all the shorter pieces). But a whole
category of novels and/or epics would in all likelihood fill me with
the same mute horror that comes of surveying OFUM!Elrond's class
reading list. I'd put it off til the end in order to try to read as
many other stories in other categories as I could, which means that
I'd never get to them in the first place.
Short form: keeping long stories in with the shorter ones makes them
more likely to get read.
Dwim
Msg# 6294
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by dwimmer\_laik November 15, 2005 - 21:21:23 Topic ID# 6291> Dwim...What I meant was, when one of us is proposing a major revamp, we
>
> << Actually, maybe this would be a good idea for this discussion? Give
> us a proposed e-amil form, then append the explanation? >>
>
> I think this is a good idea – but unfortunately it's an idea that I
> really don't have the energy to see through right now.
should try to come up with a proposed e-mail form, so we can all see
more easily how this would look to an author and also play with it as
if we were categorizers. Then others can play around with that form as
they suggest changes.
Explanations of the changes (from the original proposer and any
responders) and why they need to be instituted could then be made in
their own separate section of the e-mail.
If we want the forms sent this year for comparison, I'm sure some of
us still have copies in our e-mail files and could provide them,
suitably edited if necessary to remove things pertaining only to our
stories.
Dwim
I have a major doctor's appointment tomorrow, so I'm a little distracted and
probably not as coherent as I wish I were.
I tend to agree that the "categories" serve multiple purposes, which aren't
always compatible. I wanted to start with specifics, like the name of the
character(s), the place, the time, the form, and the genre, so that those
specifics could be grouped in ways which would best serve the goal of
keeping the levels of actual competition similar -- so that every story is
"competing" against seven or eight other stories, rather than some competing
against three and other competing against twenty. And I thought it would
still be possible to have the authors "weight" which aspect of the story
they thought was the most important.
So, "Mark of a Warrior" would be described as "Fellowship", "Hollin", "Ring
Quest/January 3019", "short short story", and "Humor", and then the author
could say "I think this is primarily Humor, and secondarily part of the Ring
Quest." The author's preference would be taken into account and if there
were enough humor stories for a category that's where it would land first,
and if there weren't it would fall into the candidates for consideration
under "Ring Quest", where it might or might not have to split out again into
Hollin vs. Moria. But the leeway would be there to make the groups of
stories come out reasonably even.
By having lists for people to choose from (or add to) it makes it possible
to define terms and settle on definitions. "Ring War" actually doesn't mean
much to me, coming from the hobbity perspective, because I can't decide when
the first salvo is fired (and do the small fights with holdouts in Mordor
count after the Battle of the Black Gate, or is that just cleanup?) But
someone else might have a very clear idea, and with a given definition I can
understand what I'm working with.
I hope that's a little clearer than the long essay of the morning!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
probably not as coherent as I wish I were.
I tend to agree that the "categories" serve multiple purposes, which aren't
always compatible. I wanted to start with specifics, like the name of the
character(s), the place, the time, the form, and the genre, so that those
specifics could be grouped in ways which would best serve the goal of
keeping the levels of actual competition similar -- so that every story is
"competing" against seven or eight other stories, rather than some competing
against three and other competing against twenty. And I thought it would
still be possible to have the authors "weight" which aspect of the story
they thought was the most important.
So, "Mark of a Warrior" would be described as "Fellowship", "Hollin", "Ring
Quest/January 3019", "short short story", and "Humor", and then the author
could say "I think this is primarily Humor, and secondarily part of the Ring
Quest." The author's preference would be taken into account and if there
were enough humor stories for a category that's where it would land first,
and if there weren't it would fall into the candidates for consideration
under "Ring Quest", where it might or might not have to split out again into
Hollin vs. Moria. But the leeway would be there to make the groups of
stories come out reasonably even.
By having lists for people to choose from (or add to) it makes it possible
to define terms and settle on definitions. "Ring War" actually doesn't mean
much to me, coming from the hobbity perspective, because I can't decide when
the first salvo is fired (and do the small fights with holdouts in Mordor
count after the Battle of the Black Gate, or is that just cleanup?) But
someone else might have a very clear idea, and with a given definition I can
understand what I'm working with.
I hope that's a little clearer than the long essay of the morning!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Actually I want word counts so that I can start sampling the longer fics
sooner, so I'll know which ones to print out for train rides. Chapter counts
didn't help me, because some authors had long chapters and some had very
short chapters. I'm certainly not married to the idea of making the lengths
be a category criterion, just one of the possible ways to sort things out.
But I do want word counts, if I can just persuade people to gather me enough
wood for another soap box.
(Heck, I'm the kind of librarian who carefully plays around with my summer
readers' lists so that I can give some kind of an award to every single kid
who actually read something, but I can just see the reaction if I said
"don't set the categories in stone till after the votes are in." Nobody
would read it as "want to spread the wealth around" -- it'd just look like
"want to manipulate it so my friends win." Oh, well.)
sooner, so I'll know which ones to print out for train rides. Chapter counts
didn't help me, because some authors had long chapters and some had very
short chapters. I'm certainly not married to the idea of making the lengths
be a category criterion, just one of the possible ways to sort things out.
But I do want word counts, if I can just persuade people to gather me enough
wood for another soap box.
(Heck, I'm the kind of librarian who carefully plays around with my summer
readers' lists so that I can give some kind of an award to every single kid
who actually read something, but I can just see the reaction if I said
"don't set the categories in stone till after the votes are in." Nobody
would read it as "want to spread the wealth around" -- it'd just look like
"want to manipulate it so my friends win." Oh, well.)
On 11/15/05, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Oh, and I echo Marta's sentiments on sorting by length. We've got a
> separate subcategory for drabbles. I'm still in favor of making *some*
> kind of distinction between vignettes, short stories, and long,
> chaptered stories.
>
> Quick reply:
>
> I don't mind having a length filter. Sometimes, that is very useful.
>
> However, I would hate to see *categories* based on length. "Novels" as
> a category would never get read as a category. Having longer pieces
> interspersed with shorter ones made me more likely to open a longer
> piece because I felt as if I was making progress towards the end of
> the category (thanks to reading all the shorter pieces). But a whole
> category of novels and/or epics would in all likelihood fill me with
> the same mute horror that comes of surveying OFUM!Elrond's class
> reading list. I'd put it off til the end in order to try to read as
> many other stories in other categories as I could, which means that
> I'd never get to them in the first place.
>
> Short form: keeping long stories in with the shorter ones makes them
> more likely to get read.
>
> Dwim
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Msg# 6297
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by Anthony Holder November 15, 2005 - 23:54:29 Topic ID# 6291> Anthony, at the risk of suggesting more work for you, would it beI had just written myself a note along those lines. Before
> possible to have the author provide the key characters and the time in
> which it’s set and providing those as filter options? So someone could
> find all the stories involving (for example) Merry and Pippin post-Ring
> War? This could provide the readers a way to find stories and let us
> focus on making sure that the stories in a certain sub-category are
> really comparable.
categorization, I had filters based on the nomination suggested
categories. I don't see any reason that I couldn't figure a way to keep
that sort of filter (or something like it) so readers can browse using
all the author-supplied information. Their results would likely be from
multiple categories, but they'd all be stories about Sam! (Right, RSF?)
This year, there was a lot of info asked for categorization, but I
didn't use very much of it in the site. It mostly just sat there on the
story details page, waiting for you to read it. I can see that it'd be
useful to be able to filter for each of these things (and have lookup
lists for them).
I don't even remember if the form asked for their preference in R/P, G
or B/T, and I'm too lazy to go look.
I do think that asking for a list of major canon character(s), along
with OC (M/F), and some other things like that would be good. The lists
to choose from would have to be pretty complete, but Liaisons would be
allowed to add to the lists, as Authors say "Hey, my main character's
not in the list." The same could be done for settings, and any other
lists you came up with.
I'd have to make it where authors could choose multiple items from each
list, where appropriate. Maybe the same list of characters could be
used for a 'Main Character(s)' list and 'Supporting Cast' list.
From a 'How much work is this to do' standpoint, all this changes much
of the info that's available for a story, and how the story can be
searched, but doesn't change the reviewing/scoring system. When you get
to that part, anything harder than changing the point spread may meet
with some resistance, but I'll probably let you work out what you want
and then tell you if I can do it or not. This part does add up to some
work, but I think I can handle it. It also seems to be where the most
improvement is needed. We'll see what you decide, and I'll tell you
what I can do at that point.
Each of the lists will require a new data table and a new 'management'
page, but I already have those for categories, and can pretty easily
copy/paste to create new lists and management pages, so that should be
OK.
> I think it's doable, though. We have two years of subcategories to workI believe that could have been done this year, in fact. I think
> as examples. And Anthony, is there a reason we couldn't add a
> subcategory later? Let's say someone wants a specific subcategory that
> isn't in the list – could they pass that on to their liaison, who could
> then pass it along to you (or someone else who's helping with
> maintenance, if that's possible) and we could add on to the list from
> that point?
Liaisons should have 'add' and 'edit' access to these lists (not
remove, because that could cause problems if stories use the code).
Anthony
Msg# 6300
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 16, 2005 - 11:27:33 Topic ID# 6291--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
every single story nominated next year?
I am sorry if I sound sarcastic, but if I had to do the word count of
every single story that I took care of as a liaison (above 150)....
If this is gonna be established.. I am not gonna volunteer again.
Not every site supports the author with word counts, let alone what
you want to include or not (Author notes, thank you notes and so on)
within a word count. The system currently lets you choose, when you
nominate what story type it is (short story, Novella and so on) with
the levels of word count. Short story is either up to 17.500 or 25.00
words. Maybe that should be explained better for the coming year, but
no way you can expect from a liaison to do this dirty job.
Rhapsody
>So can we assume you are going to volunteer to do the word count of
> But I do want word counts, if I can just persuade people to gather
> me enough wood for another soap box.
every single story nominated next year?
I am sorry if I sound sarcastic, but if I had to do the word count of
every single story that I took care of as a liaison (above 150)....
If this is gonna be established.. I am not gonna volunteer again.
Not every site supports the author with word counts, let alone what
you want to include or not (Author notes, thank you notes and so on)
within a word count. The system currently lets you choose, when you
nominate what story type it is (short story, Novella and so on) with
the levels of word count. Short story is either up to 17.500 or 25.00
words. Maybe that should be explained better for the coming year, but
no way you can expect from a liaison to do this dirty job.
Rhapsody
No, actually I expect nominators or authors to do it, not liaisons. Speaking
as an author I'd expect that most of us have our stuff in some form on our
computers where we could use the "word count" function to do the dirtywork.
And even guesstimates would give me, as a reader, the information I need to
allot my reading time from the start so that the longer stories don't get
the "oh, heck, it's got twenty chapters better try something else" reaction
as the deadlines approach.
By having actual counts, or guesstimates, instead of using general
categories for length, it makes it possible to adjust the range of
"novella", or "short story" for the purposes of the contest, again to make
the categorisation process a little more flexible.
as an author I'd expect that most of us have our stuff in some form on our
computers where we could use the "word count" function to do the dirtywork.
And even guesstimates would give me, as a reader, the information I need to
allot my reading time from the start so that the longer stories don't get
the "oh, heck, it's got twenty chapters better try something else" reaction
as the deadlines approach.
By having actual counts, or guesstimates, instead of using general
categories for length, it makes it possible to adjust the range of
"novella", or "short story" for the purposes of the contest, again to make
the categorisation process a little more flexible.
On 11/16/05, rhapsody_the_bard <rhapsody74@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
> >
> > But I do want word counts, if I can just persuade people to gather
> > me enough wood for another soap box.
>
> So can we assume you are going to volunteer to do the word count of
> every single story nominated next year?
>
> I am sorry if I sound sarcastic, but if I had to do the word count of
> every single story that I took care of as a liaison (above 150)....
> If this is gonna be established.. I am not gonna volunteer again.
>
> Not every site supports the author with word counts, let alone what
> you want to include or not (Author notes, thank you notes and so on)
> within a word count. The system currently lets you choose, when you
> nominate what story type it is (short story, Novella and so on) with
> the levels of word count. Short story is either up to 17.500 or 25.00
> words. Maybe that should be explained better for the coming year, but
> no way you can expect from a liaison to do this dirty job.
>
> Rhapsody
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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# 6308
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 17, 2005 - 2:14:48 Topic ID# 6291--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
Heh. No. Not every author is focussed on word count, I know authors
who work with word pad alone and word pad doesn't have that function,
also on another note, recently I discovered with a friend that even
versions from word give different word counts.
< something else" reaction as the deadlines approach.
I am wondering by now, with what you want has to do with
categorisation. To me it feels like what you keep on bringing up has
to do with basic story information overall. Don't get me wrong, yeah a
short list of principle characters and such.. yeah it would be great,
but that doesn't come into play when you do categorisations of stories
for the MEFA's. So can we keep these two things seperate?
When a librarian enters a book in the system, it does enter a lot of
details about the book and depending on your categorisation on the
shelves it either adds to it or not. For example, for a medical
library you look at the topic of the book, the TOC and not the colour
of the book, the size, nr of pages and so on: your client just wants
to know where the surgery books are and not if it's blue with yellow
polkadots and has to be exact 100 pages. To me it feels like now we're
talking about sizes and nr of pages. So these things doesn't say a lot
about the actual content of a story which is an absolute necessity
when you are categorising.
I think the discussion what story information a nominated story should
display is a complete different and feels a bit of nit picking to the
categorisation you do during check ballot season.
Content does.
So yes, I can see a possible improvement of story information over all
and the possibilties to make fields searchable. And I am happy to see
this feedback coming from the MEFA participants. But it doesn't add at
all to the issues we faced during categorisation this year and the
influence it had on reading season.
So can we please keep these two things apart?
Rhapsody
>< function to do the dirtywork.
> No, actually I expect nominators or authors to do it, not liaisons.
> Speaking as an author I'd expect that most of us have our stuff in
> some form on our computers where we could use the "word count"
Heh. No. Not every author is focussed on word count, I know authors
who work with word pad alone and word pad doesn't have that function,
also on another note, recently I discovered with a friend that even
versions from word give different word counts.
> And even guesstimates would give me, as a reader, the information I< stories don't get the "oh, heck, it's got twenty chapters better try
> need to allot my reading time from the start so that the longer
< something else" reaction as the deadlines approach.
I am wondering by now, with what you want has to do with
categorisation. To me it feels like what you keep on bringing up has
to do with basic story information overall. Don't get me wrong, yeah a
short list of principle characters and such.. yeah it would be great,
but that doesn't come into play when you do categorisations of stories
for the MEFA's. So can we keep these two things seperate?
When a librarian enters a book in the system, it does enter a lot of
details about the book and depending on your categorisation on the
shelves it either adds to it or not. For example, for a medical
library you look at the topic of the book, the TOC and not the colour
of the book, the size, nr of pages and so on: your client just wants
to know where the surgery books are and not if it's blue with yellow
polkadots and has to be exact 100 pages. To me it feels like now we're
talking about sizes and nr of pages. So these things doesn't say a lot
about the actual content of a story which is an absolute necessity
when you are categorising.
I think the discussion what story information a nominated story should
display is a complete different and feels a bit of nit picking to the
categorisation you do during check ballot season.
> By having actual counts, or guesstimates, instead of using generalNo it does not. See above. Length doesn't influence categorisation.
> categories for length, it makes it possible to adjust the range of
> "novella", or "short story" for the purposes of the contest, again
> to make the categorisation process a little more flexible.
Content does.
So yes, I can see a possible improvement of story information over all
and the possibilties to make fields searchable. And I am happy to see
this feedback coming from the MEFA participants. But it doesn't add at
all to the issues we faced during categorisation this year and the
influence it had on reading season.
So can we please keep these two things apart?
Rhapsody
On 11/17/05, rhapsody_the_bard <rhapsody74@gmail.com> wrote:
the short forms where the word count was one of the restriction the author
labored under, so a bit of waffling from different programs wouldn't matter
otherwise. Even the "count five lines, average, and then count the total
number of lines on one page, and multiply total page count by the lines from
the page and the average number of words per line" kind of approach would
get you a ballpark.
I am wondering by now, with what you want has to do with
descriptive information and definitions of terms! I can't help it, it's my
job. *grin*
When it comes to whether or not "length" should be a part of categories or
just a part of the story description, I think it's worth having the
discussion. So far, there seem to be a few assumptions going that I don't
find valid.
1. People won't read longer stories
2. People will read longer stories if they're part of a category with
shorter things because they want to read the entire category.
3. Because of one and two, long stories can't win anything if they're not
mixed in with shorter stories in the categories.
For the first one, well, I like longer stories. Just not when I'm pushing a
deadline. For the second, I very seldom read an entire subcategory unless it
was a subcategory of drabbles. (And not always then!) And for the third, I
don't think it's necessarily fair to ask long stories to compete with short
pieces, particularly not when we could (and did) filter for length.
This is where some statistics would help. I have to go to work, and would
have to do the counting by hand, but Anthony, can you in any easy way break
down the results to show both the number of reviews and the average number
of points awarded for drabbles, vignettes, etc.? Remembering that "While the
Ring Went South" is going to skew the figures, so we should have the
information for novels once with and once without it.
If you can't I'll play with the statistics manually.
Thanks for raising the question, Rhapsody!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>When it comes to lengths, the only time *precise* word counts matter is in
> Heh. No. Not every author is focussed on word count, I know authors
> who work with word pad alone and word pad doesn't have that function,
> also on another note, recently I discovered with a friend that even
> versions from word give different word counts.
the short forms where the word count was one of the restriction the author
labored under, so a bit of waffling from different programs wouldn't matter
otherwise. Even the "count five lines, average, and then count the total
number of lines on one page, and multiply total page count by the lines from
the page and the average number of words per line" kind of approach would
get you a ballpark.
I am wondering by now, with what you want has to do with
> categorisation. To me it feels like what you keep on bringing up hasWell, you're right in that I'm thinking like a librarian when I want
> to do with basic story information overall. Don't get me wrong, yeah a
> short list of principle characters and such.. yeah it would be great,
> but that doesn't come into play when you do categorisations of stories
> for the MEFA's. So can we keep these two things seperate?
>
> When a librarian enters a book in the system, it does enter a lot of
> details about the book and depending on your categorisation on the
> shelves it either adds to it or not. For example, for a medical
> library you look at the topic of the book, the TOC and not the colour
> of the book, the size, nr of pages and so on: your client just wants
> to know where the surgery books are and not if it's blue with yellow
> polkadots and has to be exact 100 pages. To me it feels like now we're
> talking about sizes and nr of pages. So these things doesn't say a lot
> about the actual content of a story which is an absolute necessity
> when you are categorising.
>
> I think the discussion what story information a nominated story should
> display is a complete different and feels a bit of nit picking to the
> categorisation you do during check ballot season.
>
>
> So yes, I can see a possible improvement of story information over all
> and the possibilties to make fields searchable. And I am happy to see
> this feedback coming from the MEFA participants. But it doesn't add at
> all to the issues we faced during categorisation this year and the
> influence it had on reading season.
>
> So can we please keep these two things apart?
>
> Rhapsody
descriptive information and definitions of terms! I can't help it, it's my
job. *grin*
When it comes to whether or not "length" should be a part of categories or
just a part of the story description, I think it's worth having the
discussion. So far, there seem to be a few assumptions going that I don't
find valid.
1. People won't read longer stories
2. People will read longer stories if they're part of a category with
shorter things because they want to read the entire category.
3. Because of one and two, long stories can't win anything if they're not
mixed in with shorter stories in the categories.
For the first one, well, I like longer stories. Just not when I'm pushing a
deadline. For the second, I very seldom read an entire subcategory unless it
was a subcategory of drabbles. (And not always then!) And for the third, I
don't think it's necessarily fair to ask long stories to compete with short
pieces, particularly not when we could (and did) filter for length.
This is where some statistics would help. I have to go to work, and would
have to do the counting by hand, but Anthony, can you in any easy way break
down the results to show both the number of reviews and the average number
of points awarded for drabbles, vignettes, etc.? Remembering that "While the
Ring Went South" is going to skew the figures, so we should have the
information for novels once with and once without it.
If you can't I'll play with the statistics manually.
Thanks for raising the question, Rhapsody!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Msg# 6310
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard November 17, 2005 - 14:07:00 Topic ID# 6291--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, C Dodd <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
be careful who you accuse of waffling.
And I am out of this discussion.
Rhapsody
>It does, since you brought it up as relatively easy. It just isn't. So
> On 11/17/05, rhapsody_the_bard <rhapsody74@g...> wrote:
> >
>> Heh. No. Not every author is focussed on word count, I know
>> authors who work with word pad alone and word pad doesn't have that
>> function, also on another note, recently I discovered with a friend
>> that even versions from word give different word counts.
>
> When it comes to lengths, the only time *precise* word counts
> matter is in the short forms where the word count was one of the
> restriction the author labored under, so a bit of waffling from
> different programs wouldn't matter otherwise.
be careful who you accuse of waffling.
> Even the "count five lines, average, and then count the totalAuthors are not gonna do a manual handcount. This is too naive.
> number of lines on one page, and multiply total page count by the
> lines from the page and the average number of words per line" kind
> of approach would get you a ballpark.
And I am out of this discussion.
Rhapsody
Msg# 6311
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by ejackamack@aol.com November 17, 2005 - 15:24:24 Topic ID# 6291Rabidsamfan wrote:
It does, since you brought it up as relatively easy. It just isn't. So
be careful who you accuse of waffling.
Rhapsody-
No one was accusing you of anything. Rabidsamfan was merely talking about
the differences in word count programs.
that I don't recollect being pointed out (though I have skimmed posts and I
may have missed it) is that if we are thinking of dividing categories by
wordcount, some archives put that information in the summary for the story. Ff.net
does, and so does TFF. HASA has wordcount in the story overview. SOA and
Open Scrolls don't. That's a quick five-minute survey there, but it does show
that we wouldn't have to be doing wordcounts on every story.
Isabeau
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> Heh. No. Not every author is focussed on word count, I knowRhapsody wrote:
>> authors who work with word pad alone and word pad doesn't have that
>> function, also on another note, recently I discovered with a friend
>> that even versions from word give different word counts.
>
> When it comes to lengths, the only time *precise* word counts
> matter is in the short forms where the word count was one of the
> restriction the author labored under, so a bit of waffling from
> different programs wouldn't matter otherwise.
It does, since you brought it up as relatively easy. It just isn't. So
be careful who you accuse of waffling.
Rhapsody-
No one was accusing you of anything. Rabidsamfan was merely talking about
the differences in word count programs.
>>Authors are not gonna do a manual handcount. This is too naive.I don't have a problem with discussing the possibility further. Something
>>And I am out of this discussion.
>>Rhapsody
that I don't recollect being pointed out (though I have skimmed posts and I
may have missed it) is that if we are thinking of dividing categories by
wordcount, some archives put that information in the summary for the story. Ff.net
does, and so does TFF. HASA has wordcount in the story overview. SOA and
Open Scrolls don't. That's a quick five-minute survey there, but it does show
that we wouldn't have to be doing wordcounts on every story.
Isabeau
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, ejackamack@a... wrote:
skimmed posts and I > may have missed it) is that if we are thinking
of dividing categories by > wordcount, some archives put that
information in the summary for the story. Ff.net > does, and so
does TFF. HASA has wordcount in the story overview. SOA and > Open
Scrolls don't. That's a quick five-minute survey there, but it does
show > that we wouldn't have to be doing wordcounts on every story.
I'm having a little trouble following this thread for some reason,
maybe because the sinus pills at making me ditzy without relieving
the pressure. but this thread doesn't seem to be moving.
I do think that an author should have an idea, within a few hundred
words, or at least a thousand in a longer work, of how long their
work is. That seems very basic to me. And as has been pointed out,
most word processing programs and archives will count them for you. -
that said, I strongly support some type of division by length.
Because regardless of if the longer or short stories get more or less
reads compared to the other, there is a difference and I'd like to
see them compete against their own kind.
My suggestion for categorization is to pick one of the main
categories, I suggested genre, in part because I think it gives us a
wider range to start with.
so the main cates would include:
romance
drama
angst (I think should be separate from drama)
adventure
AU
Movie verse
crossover
horror
humor
mystery
non-fiction
drabble
poetry
I'm not asking to set them in stone, just using them for example.
what I mean by *starting with* standardized subcates is that the
following subcates would be duplicated in every main cate.
Elves
Men
Dwarves
- other races
The Hobbit
Silmarillion
LotR
and there will be certain ones that can be anticipated. like an
Aragorn subcate will probably be needed in Romance, Drama, Angst,
etc. ...
*then* - if there are enough Aragorn/Arwen or Aragorn/Legolas or
whoever in the Romance:Aragorn subcate, those would be pulled out by
the categorizer into their own subcate. It should be a simple
process.
if (FOR EXAMPLE) if there are 14 Romance:Aragorn/Arwen stories, more
than five under 10,000 words and more than five over 80,000 words, it
would be simple to split them into a Romance:Aragorn/Arwen Novel
subcate and a Romance:Aragorn/Arwen Short Story subcate.
If the author chooses the genre, lists the main characters, pairing
and word count, it seems to me that it would be a simple thing for
the categorizer to simply look at each subcate - those that have over
15 (?) stories, look at the items listed (no having to read the story
or try to figure out the authors mind) and create new subcates based
on the info the author provided when they accepted the nomination.
any subcates that have less than give entries would bump up
to 'general' of the main category.
I don't agree at all with having catagorizers moving the entries from
one cate or subcate to another except to create a new subcate because
of a large category.
I also feel strongly that there is a significant difference in the
non-fiction between essay and article, an essay being an interp of
information or an opinion of provided information and an article is
the straightforward presentation of information for the reader to
use, - to interp on their own if they wish -so for the most part the
duplicated subcates wouldn't work for the non-fiction cate.
Sulriel
>>Something > that I don't recollect being pointed out (though I have
> I don't have a problem with discussing the possibility further.
skimmed posts and I > may have missed it) is that if we are thinking
of dividing categories by > wordcount, some archives put that
information in the summary for the story. Ff.net > does, and so
does TFF. HASA has wordcount in the story overview. SOA and > Open
Scrolls don't. That's a quick five-minute survey there, but it does
show > that we wouldn't have to be doing wordcounts on every story.
>(I think SoA does a word count in the author's private pages)
> Isabeau
>
I'm having a little trouble following this thread for some reason,
maybe because the sinus pills at making me ditzy without relieving
the pressure. but this thread doesn't seem to be moving.
I do think that an author should have an idea, within a few hundred
words, or at least a thousand in a longer work, of how long their
work is. That seems very basic to me. And as has been pointed out,
most word processing programs and archives will count them for you. -
that said, I strongly support some type of division by length.
Because regardless of if the longer or short stories get more or less
reads compared to the other, there is a difference and I'd like to
see them compete against their own kind.
My suggestion for categorization is to pick one of the main
categories, I suggested genre, in part because I think it gives us a
wider range to start with.
so the main cates would include:
romance
drama
angst (I think should be separate from drama)
adventure
AU
Movie verse
crossover
horror
humor
mystery
non-fiction
drabble
poetry
I'm not asking to set them in stone, just using them for example.
what I mean by *starting with* standardized subcates is that the
following subcates would be duplicated in every main cate.
Elves
Men
Dwarves
- other races
The Hobbit
Silmarillion
LotR
and there will be certain ones that can be anticipated. like an
Aragorn subcate will probably be needed in Romance, Drama, Angst,
etc. ...
*then* - if there are enough Aragorn/Arwen or Aragorn/Legolas or
whoever in the Romance:Aragorn subcate, those would be pulled out by
the categorizer into their own subcate. It should be a simple
process.
if (FOR EXAMPLE) if there are 14 Romance:Aragorn/Arwen stories, more
than five under 10,000 words and more than five over 80,000 words, it
would be simple to split them into a Romance:Aragorn/Arwen Novel
subcate and a Romance:Aragorn/Arwen Short Story subcate.
If the author chooses the genre, lists the main characters, pairing
and word count, it seems to me that it would be a simple thing for
the categorizer to simply look at each subcate - those that have over
15 (?) stories, look at the items listed (no having to read the story
or try to figure out the authors mind) and create new subcates based
on the info the author provided when they accepted the nomination.
any subcates that have less than give entries would bump up
to 'general' of the main category.
I don't agree at all with having catagorizers moving the entries from
one cate or subcate to another except to create a new subcate because
of a large category.
I also feel strongly that there is a significant difference in the
non-fiction between essay and article, an essay being an interp of
information or an opinion of provided information and an article is
the straightforward presentation of information for the reader to
use, - to interp on their own if they wish -so for the most part the
duplicated subcates wouldn't work for the non-fiction cate.
Sulriel
Msg# 6314
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by aelfwina@cableone.net November 17, 2005 - 18:44:44 Topic ID# 6291----- Original Message -----
From: <ejackamack@aol.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: Categorisation - Replies
> I don't have a problem with discussing the possibility further.
Something
> that I don't recollect being pointed out (though I have skimmed posts and
> I
> may have missed it) is that if we are thinking of dividing categories by
> wordcount, some archives put that information in the summary for the
> story. Ff.net
> does, and so does TFF. HASA has wordcount in the story overview. SOA
> and
> Open Scrolls don't. That's a quick five-minute survey there, but it does
> show
> that we wouldn't have to be doing wordcounts on every story.
>
Stories of Arda does have the word count on the "work page" the Author uses
to add chapters. Older stories may not have them, but all it takes to get
them is to click on as though you are going to edit the story, and they will
appear. This is a relatively new feature though, and not everybody may
realize it.
Dreamflower
(Barbara)
> Isabeau
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Msg# 6316
Re: Categorisation - Replies Posted by Chris Grzonka November 17, 2005 - 20:46:33 Topic ID# 6291Rhapsody worte:
approach: Word count, character list, poem, non-fiction etc. The other is
more concentrated on content: Races, places, genre, timeline etc.
A categorization with content in mind can still have the other information
on the story page or in the filters for the readers to search with. But the
categories decide which stories compete against each other. The technical
information helps the reader more to pick the stories they want to read,
unless you want the stories to compete in technical categories, which I
think is not what these awards are about.
The categories we had this year were confusing to me as a reader until I
decided I can't read complete categories anyway, and I'm just going to read
what strikes my fancy. From that point on, I was more interested in
technical aspects of the entries. How long are they, what characters are in
the story and so on. If I would have a chance on reading all entries then,
as a reader, the categories become more important again.
For competing and winnig, the categories are much more important. But this
is from the author's side.
I think there are two sides to this issue. One is the competition side,
which story competes against what other stories and then the reader side,
how can I easily decide what I want to read and what not.
Chris
> I am wondering by now, with what you want has to do withI think there are 2 systems of categorization. One is a more technical
> categorisation. To me it feels like what you keep on bringing up has
> to do with basic story information overall. Don't get me wrong, yeah a
> short list of principle characters and such.. yeah it would be great,
> but that doesn't come into play when you do categorisations of stories
> for the MEFA's. So can we keep these two things seperate?
approach: Word count, character list, poem, non-fiction etc. The other is
more concentrated on content: Races, places, genre, timeline etc.
A categorization with content in mind can still have the other information
on the story page or in the filters for the readers to search with. But the
categories decide which stories compete against each other. The technical
information helps the reader more to pick the stories they want to read,
unless you want the stories to compete in technical categories, which I
think is not what these awards are about.
The categories we had this year were confusing to me as a reader until I
decided I can't read complete categories anyway, and I'm just going to read
what strikes my fancy. From that point on, I was more interested in
technical aspects of the entries. How long are they, what characters are in
the story and so on. If I would have a chance on reading all entries then,
as a reader, the categories become more important again.
For competing and winnig, the categories are much more important. But this
is from the author's side.
I think there are two sides to this issue. One is the competition side,
which story competes against what other stories and then the reader side,
how can I easily decide what I want to read and what not.
Chris
If you have any questions about the archive, or would like to report a technical problem, please contact Aranel (former MEFA Tech Support and current Keeper of the Archive) at araneltook@mefawards.org or at the MEFA Archive group..