Yahoo Forum Archive

Hey guys,

There were lots more good replies today. I think we're making some
definite progress. I'm just going to hit a few high points.

[Laura]

>>> Should the categories place stories in groups that are comparable
>>> enough that its a fair competition? Or should the categories be
>>> guiding the readers toward stories theyre likely to enjoy? I think
>>> both of these are good goals, but if we try to do both through the
>>> categorization well end up with something that doesnt do either
>>> as well as it should.
>
> Which 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.

No, we don't want to abandon one for the other, and if we can arrange
the categories in such a way that it does something for both of these
goals, that's not a bad thing. But categorisation is the only way to
make sure similar stories compete against each other, so I think it
should be our first priority here.

> I have to echo what both Ainae and Rhaposody have said. I don't think
> you can eliminate the three divisions.

At first I was in favor of eliminating them, but after seeing this
discussed I can see that might not be the best idea.

> 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.

I think we do need to emphasise the divisions more, as I think there is
a real difference between them. I actually wrote an FAQ on this
differnece:

http://www.freewebs.com/aure/faq4categories.htm#61180701

I know that wasn't available last year, but it will be this year.

But Thundera, I don't understand the difference of what you're
proposing, from what we currently have. Can you explain it a bit more
clearly? Unless there's something I'm missing, I think Kathy's idea
might be better.

> 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.

Dwim made some good points about not separating out longer stories. I
think it does make sense to separate out stand-alone, single-chapter
pieces, or at the very least ficlets (double and triple drabbles).
They're just such a different animal than longer pieces, I don't think
it's good to have them in the same category.

Anthony:

> 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.

I think so. The thing with awards like this is, we really only see the
most obvious problems. Once those get fixed we notice the less obvious
issues that we didn't see before. This year the website made voting
*worlds* easier, which meant that a lot of the problems I saw were with
the earlier parts of the awards.

> We'll see what you decide, and I'll tell you
> what I can do at that point.
>

That's fine. At any point feel free to say "no"; this is all volunteer
work. And thanks for letting us know how hard things will be. If it
turns out it's not doable, feel free to say so, but it is easier if we
know when we're discussing things. (Rather than, say, next Feb when
we're all done discussing these things.)

> > 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  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?
>
> I believe that could have been done this year, in fact. I think
> Liaisons should have 'add' and 'edit' access to these lists (not
> remove, because that could cause problems if stories use the code).
>
>

Well, last year categorisers could create and delete subcategories. I
think what we're suggesting here is having a list of possible
subcategories available during nomination season, which the author
would select instead of having the text field we have right now.

I do agree on not giving liaisons "remove" access -- it could create
too many problems, and I don't think they really *need* it.

Inkling:

> But for those who are really irked by Romance: Rohan and Rohan:
> Romance, what if we make it a rule that any main category cannot be
> used as a subcategory in another main category?  So, for example,
> under Romance, you couldn't have a Rohan subcat&although you could
> have Romance: Eowyn, etc.
>

That makes a lot of sense. It seems the simplest solution to the
problem. So if something's a category, it can't also be a subcategory.

Dwim:

> 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.

Okay, I definitely understand your reasons now and it makes a lot of
sense. I still am in favor of separating ficlets out if at all
possible, and maybe even stand-alone pieces. (That last one's much more
negotiable\ in my mind.)

Personally I still won't read a lot of long pieces. I just don't enjoy
them as a rule. But without them separated out, I at least will read
the summaries and will probably read more than I would otherwise.

RSF:

> > But I do want word counts, if I can just persuade people to gather
> > me enough wood for another soap box.
>

If we want filters that can display certain story limits I think we
need to have those categories. That doesn't mean we couldn't also have
(optional) word or chapter counts that the author to give the reader
more of an idea.

Rhapsody:

On this issue... if we do this, it would be the author's responsibility
to provide it (or not). The liaison wouldn't have to go do a word
count. It might make sense if the author provides one to make sure it
matches the general length. So if your author gives you a word count of
47,000 and lists the length as a short story you may need to ask them
if they made a mistake. I think a lot of people clicked the wrong
length by mistake this year.

Marta

> Okay, I definitely understand your reasons now and it makes a lot of
> sense. I still am in favor of separating ficlets out if at all
> possible, and maybe even stand-alone pieces. (That last one's much

more

> negotiable\ in my mind.)
>

I think here is where RSF's wordcount project would be handy. What
counts as a ficlet? At the moment, drabbles are what I see as needing
to compete in a special, length-restricted subcategory; I'm not sure
ficlet needs that same kind of grouping (I think a 500 word piece
could probably survive comparisons). Extremely long pieces, by
contrast, I think need to be in with other shorter stories so they
have a better chance of being read.

"Stand alone" is too vague for me to know what you mean by it. If you
mean single-chapter stories, the effect of separating them out
officially would, I think, mean that de facto, anything with chapters
would be grouped into an easily ignorable section. Otherwise, the
variety within one-chapter stories is such as to make it hard to see
what problem or need this move of separating them out is addressing.

Dwim

Hi Dwim,

> > Okay, I definitely understand your reasons now and it makes a lot of
> > sense. I still am in favor of separating ficlets out if at all
> > possible, and maybe even stand-alone pieces. (That last one's much
> more
> > negotiable\ in my mind.)
> >
>
> I think here is where RSF's wordcount project would be handy. What
> counts as a ficlet? At the moment, drabbles are what I see as needing
> to compete in a special, length-restricted subcategory; I'm not sure
> ficlet needs that same kind of grouping (I think a 500 word piece
> could probably survive comparisons). Extremely long pieces, by
> contrast, I think need to be in with other shorter stories so they
> have a better chance of being read.
>

A 500-word piece, possibly. But I think double- and triple-drabbles are
a bit shakier. The problem isn't so much the length as is it is the
fact that you're writing to a specific limit. I know that there were
several pseudo-drabbles (111- or 150-word pieces) that technically
weren't drabbles but had much more in common with them than with the
longer pieces they were categorised with.

I remember having several comments about my double drabbles where the
reviewer commented how it was a "good start but too short". It's
possible I picked a subject that couldn't be addressed even in 200
words, but I do think that reviewers had different expectations because
of the category. If they had read the double drabble along with "real"
drabbles (100 words exactly), I think they would have reviewed them
differently. I know there were a few times when I had to remind myself
that a piece was only supposed to be 200 words, that that was the form
the author worked in, and keep that in mind when writing a review.

> "Stand alone" is too vague for me to know what you mean by it. If you
> mean single-chapter stories, the effect of separating them out
> officially would, I think, mean that de facto, anything with chapters
> would be grouped into an easily ignorable section. Otherwise, the
> variety within one-chapter stories is such as to make it hard to see
> what problem or need this move of separating them out is addressing.
>

"Stand alone" is vague, you're right. I meant vignettes, which we
allowed as a subcategory this year. Stories that are a single scene.
But like I said, that's a much less important distinction than between
ficlets.

And for the record, when I say ficlet I mean pieces of a set limit
between 100 and 300 words -- 111, 150, 200, and 300 usually.

Marta

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:

>

<snip>

> Rhapsody:
>
> On this issue... if we do this, it would be the author's
> responsibility to provide it (or not). The liaison wouldn't have to
> go do a word count. It might make sense if the author provides one
> to make sure it matches the general length. So if your author gives
> you a word count of 47,000 and lists the length as a short story you
> may need to ask them if they made a mistake. I think a lot of
> people clicked the wrong length by mistake this year.

I hate to be the spoilsport here, but it isn't realistic. If it isn't
supplied, then you have a faulty system by default because many
stories will lack that (so what would be the point at all). If it isnt
there, it still would be one of these things the liaison checks (like
rating, pairings, validity of url, date published, right author (don't
frown, this happened more then you think), all chosen categories
selected) and so on. In the end, most often, it still ends up in the
liaison's lap. And that is a task that I am not wishing to happen for
a liaison: it should be a fast job and not copy and pasting every
chapter of a long story in a word document to get the word count on
top of the rest what needs to be done. Getting your author encouraged
to let them fill out the missing details was already quite a
correspondence & challenge.

Besides that... from my experience, a longer story, with long chapters
can be just as an enthralling read, which makes your flip over the
pages faster then you think. A short story can sometimes take more
time then you think when the pacing pulls you out of it. To me it
feels like excluding good pieces by marking them by word count. Folks
will go, even before they started with the story, oh no not going to
read that, while it might make a faster and an extremely good read
after all.

I think you should be honest then and not include longer works anymore
if this is the overall direction it seems to be heading to.

Rhapsody

>
> > Rhapsody wrote:
> >
>
> Besides that... from my experience, a longer story, with long chapters
> can be just as an enthralling read, which makes your flip over the
> pages faster then you think. A short story can sometimes take more
> time then you think when the pacing pulls you out of it. To me it
> feels like excluding good pieces by marking them by word count. Folks
> will go, even before they started with the story, oh no not going to
> read that, while it might make a faster and an extremely good read
> after all.
>
> I think you should be honest then and not include longer works anymore
> if this is the overall direction it seems to be heading to.
>

I love long stories and would hate to see them go. When I started reviewing,
I started with the long stories first. In so far I liked that I could look
for entries by size. Depending on my mood and time constraints, I would sort
what to read by length. If I thought it was a short piece, opened it, and
discovered 10 chapters, I would go to something else because I wanted to
read a short piece at that time. That wouldn't mean I would not read it,
just not in that session.

Contrary to what I saw from other people, I read the whole story before
doing a review. Okay, that limited the amount of my reviews, but I have a
hard time reviewing something on the merit of the first few paragraphs,
unless it is atrocious and then I wouldn't review it at all.

Chris

>

I want to clear up a few points here.

[Rhapsody]

> > I think you should be honest then and not include longer works
> anymore
> > if this is the overall direction it seems to be heading to.
> >
>

[Chris]

> I love long stories and would hate to see them go. When I started
> reviewing,
> I started with the long stories first. In so far I liked that I could
> look
> for entries by size. Depending on my mood and time constraints, I
> would sort
> what to read by length. If I thought it was a short piece, opened it,
> and
> discovered 10 chapters, I would go to something else because I wanted
> to
> read a short piece at that time. That wouldn't mean I would not read
> it,
> just not in that session.
>

My personal preference will probably always be swhort stories. This
comes from my varied interests, need for short attention spans, and
need for instant gratification. :-) I will sometimes read a medium- or
long-length piece, but given the choice between a chapter of a long
piece or a short piece (all other things being equal) I'll go for the
shorter piece. I don't mean this as a criticism of longer pieces. It's
just not usually my cup of earl grey.

However - and this is a big "however" - this is not official MEFA
policy. It's my personal preference and very different from the
direction the MEFAs will be taking. As far as I'm concerned longer
stories will always be welcome here.

Marta