Yahoo Forum Archive

Hey guys,

I've read most of the comments to date, and while they're all very
thought-provoking, I think if I try to answer them we'll end up going
in circles. The problem is, I find myself comign down on both sides of
several different issues: limiting categories to one division
(books/time, genres, or races/places); categorising by length; and
probably some other things I've forgotten. This is probably my having a
hectic RL right now, which is keeping me uncharacteristically
indecisive. That's neither here nor there, of course, and it doesn't
move us any closer to a decision.

Which is just the problem. Because I am being indecisive I'm having a
hard time seeing compromises, and it feels like this issue is splitting
us into groups. I just don't think we're moving forward.

So I'm going to throw some questions out here. Maybe it will spark an
idea for one of us that all or at least most of us can be happy with.

1. Do you think the nomination limits of 20 nominations per nominator
will mean less pieces are nominated next year?

2. If so, does this mean we need less categories?

3. If we need less categories, how do you suggest we reduce the number
of categories?

4. What should be the basis for subcategories? Should they be stories
involving the same character or theme, or is there another thing we
should be using to determine subcategories?

5. Do you prefer larger categories (and so fewer of them) or smaller
ones? Keep in mind that smaller categories may mean stories in
mandatory subcategories have a bigger chance of being moved to their
second or third category choice.

Marta

> So I'm going to throw some questions out here. Maybe it will spark an
> idea for one of us that all or at least most of us can be happy with.
>
> 1. Do you think the nomination limits of 20 nominations per nominator
> will mean less pieces are nominated next year?

Consider the Mithrils. You have one nom per person per category. They
still ended up with roughly 600 stories this year, I believe. And
remember that they do limit it to stories published in the last year.

Limiting nominations will help, I think, but having now seen what
Mithrils got on their third run, and starting later in the year than
they usually do, I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll be pushing
1000 fics next year again.

> 2. If so, does this mean we need less categories?

I have a feeling we won't need significantly fewer. Some categories
may drop out--Dwarves, for instance, do not seem to get that many
stories written about them. But whether we do "Men: Rohan" or "Rohan"
with subcategories, I think we'll have the same need for a fairly
diverse and broad range of categories and subcats.

> 3. If we need less categories, how do you suggest we reduce the number
> of categories?

If we had to reduce, I'd say use the genres as the main categories,
and then make the other two (current) into subcategories. Genres is
the most diverse main category and it's not hard on the brain to think
in terms of identifying your story as a genre (as opposed to deciding
whether a story taking place across time periods and lands is more
focused on one land or another).

> 4. What should be the basis for subcategories? Should they be stories
> involving the same character or theme, or is there another thing we
> should be using to determine subcategories?

Given that subcats are a rather free-wheeling, fluid creature, I'd be
willing to accept a number of criteria as valid. We already do have
some based on form, some based on time periods, and some based on
characters. I kind of like them that way as they respond to what's
actually 'on the market' of stories during any given contest, as it
were. So I'm not sure I would agree that this is quite the question to
ask.

> 5. Do you prefer larger categories (and so fewer of them) or smaller
> ones? Keep in mind that smaller categories may mean stories in
> mandatory subcategories have a bigger chance of being moved to their
> second or third category choice.

I like my subcats just a little bigger--five is a bit small, IMO. So I
don't mind larger subcategories. So long as the entire category isn't
made up exclusively of subcategories, I don't worry too much over size.

The question I would ask for refocusing this discussion:

What is/are the problem/s with the current categorization scheme that
we should be trying to answer?

What are categories and subcategories primarily intended to do and for
whom? That gives us the context from which to make sense of the answer
to question one.


One specific problem that came up was the mirror image
category/subcategory. Here, the "for whom" is clearly "for the
reader/voter", and the implicit answer to "what are
categories/subcategories primarily intended do?" is "provide a
categorization scheme that puts fics that have similar qualities into
competition, instead of arbitrarily separating them from each other".


Dwim

I'd say that the number and size of categories/subcategories should depend
on the number and types of nominations received. I think that many of the
things we end up will be similar to this year, but trying to plan which and
how many ahead of time will probably result in some things being shoehorned
into a place where they don't quite fit, just to make things work out. You'd
get a situation like this year, where the subcategories are very good at
giving us smallish groups of stories in direct competition and not so very
good at putting similar stories together.
This is sort of what I was trying to solve when I suggested, in my
incoherent way, that we gather information about stories that is as specific
as possible. rather than asking authors to pick categories. It makes it
easier to sort the pile into groups of similar size that are also similar in
nature.
There are some kinks with starting with specifics. Meriadoc Brandybuck is
not only a hobbit, he's also a member of the Fellowship, a Traveler, and a
Brandybuck. A story about Merry which happens in Moria during the Ring Quest
would be more properly grouped with "Fellowship" stories instead of tucked
in among "Hobbits", if there weren't enough Merry stories to warrant a
competitive subcategory. But I think Dwim's group of questions would make it
simple for the categorisers to make those sort of decisions. (I certainly
think that, whatever the list of possibilities we present to authors and
nominators, they should be able to add things we forgot. Maybe a bunch of
tickyboxes with a ticky and a text box at the bottom for "Other".)
If I were going to vote, I'd probably pick more small "competition groups"
over fewer larger groups )unless the MEFAs were to go to a different sort of
competition where a story which was a drabble about Aragorn and Eowyn's
romance set in Ithilien might garner an award for being an excellent
drabble, an honorable mention for romance, and zippo for Ithilien stories.)
Specific information from the authors, whether it was used as the term
defining the final category division, could remain on the story details page
to allow for keyword searches, couldn't it? That would serve the other
function of categories, which is to help the readers find what they're
looking for.


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

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

> So I'm going to throw some questions out here. Maybe it will spark
> an idea for one of us that all or at least most of us can be happy
> with.
>
> 1. Do you think the nomination limits of 20 nominations per

nominator will mean less pieces are nominated next year?

I think it's just too hard to call and because of that, I don't think
it should drive any of our decisions this year. NEXT year we will
know for sure whether it helped cut down on nominations, and can make
decisions accordingly.

But I think our categeory decisions this year, to the extent that we
can make them ahead of time in this port-mortem, should focus on
things like simplicity and clarity. Once the nominations are in, I
think we should deal with the real numbers just as we did this
year...by adjusting the number of categories and subcategories.

> 2. If so, does this mean we need less categories?

See above. We may need more or fewer subcategories...and *possibly*
categories. But don't think we can decide that now.

>
> 3. If we need less categories, how do you suggest we reduce the

number of categories?

>

I think it would just depend on seeing what looks like it may be
nonviable once the nominations are in...if there were almost no dwarf
stories, for example, then it might not be possible to have a dwarf
category, and they would have to go into a division other than "Race."

I don't think I'm in favor of throwing out whole category divisions
at this point, and may post more about that tomorrow when I'm feeling
more coherent. But, if the decision were made to do that, I guess I'd
vote for Genre as the division to keep.

> 4. What should be the basis for subcategories? Should they be
> stories involving the same character or theme, or is there another
> thing we should be using to determine subcategories?

I'm with Dwim here...lots of variety in subcat choices, just as we
had this year, is good. Character, theme, form, length, source, and
focused time periods. Plus whatever else authors want to suggest. And
those who are bewildered or stumped can just consult the list of past
subcats in Marta's excellent FAQ. Or a drop-down list on a webform,
if we go with that idea.

>
> 5. Do you prefer larger categories (and so fewer of them) or
> smaller ones? Keep in mind that smaller categories may mean stories
> in mandatory subcategories have a bigger chance of being moved to
> their second or third category choice.

Marta, did you mean SUBcategories? If so, then I think around 10
stories in a subcat seems about right...5 is a bit small, and 15 a
bit large. But generally, I think the current range of 5-15 is fine.
If you *do* mean categories, then I guess I don't understand the
question. Which means it's probably time to go to bed!

Kathy (Inkling)

In a message dated 11/18/2005 10:28:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
melayton@gmail.com writes:

1. Do you think the nomination limits of 20 nominations per nominator
will mean less pieces are nominated next year?
Don't know. Like Dwim said about the Mithrils, our fandom still seems
relatively healthy. I expect some kind of drop, just because there aren't so many
stories being written.

2. If so, does this mean we need less categories?
Not sure yet. And I'm not sure we need to decide on an overall number
without a better idea of the entry level.

3. If we need less categories, how do you suggest we reduce the number
of categories?

4. What should be the basis for subcategories? Should they be stories
involving the same character or theme, or is there another thing we
should be using to determine subcategories?

I agree with Dwim here-not much sense in restricting them.

5. Do you prefer larger categories (and so fewer of them) or smaller
ones? Keep in mind that smaller categories may mean stories in
mandatory subcategories have a bigger chance of being moved to their
second or third category choice.

Also agree with Dwim-I'd like to see ten stories a category before we break
it into a subcategory. Of course, that would mean fewer people would place,
and that might reduce the feel-good factor. Willing to talk about this one.

Isabeau





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

I'm replying to Inkling, Dwim, and Isabeau together here. Seems
simplest.

>> > 1. Do you think the nomination limits of 20 nominations per
>> nominator
>> > will mean less pieces are nominated next year?
>
> DWIM:
> Limiting nominations will help, I think, but having now seen what
> Mithrils got on their third run, and starting later in the year than
> they usually do, I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll be pushing
> 1000 fics next year again.

I suspect you're probably right about this. I hope it's not the case or
at the very least not much more than that because we really do need
fewer nominations to keep reviewers from getting frustrated. But it's
quite possible that I'm foreseeing a bigger drop in nominations than
we'll actually have, and so am seeing problems where none really exist.

> INKLING
> But I think our categeory decisions this year, to the extent that we
> can make them ahead of time in this post-mortem, should focus on
> things like simplicity and clarity.

I agree with you here. And I think (hope) things like the categories
FAQ that I posted last night and the revised nomination form that Dwim
has suggested will go a way toward this.

>> > 2. If so, does this mean we need less categories?

> ISABEAU:
> Not sure yet. And I'm not sure we need to decide on an overall
> number without a better idea of the entry level.

This seems to be the consensus, and I agree with it to an extent. The
problem in my mind is that there are certain subcategories that weren't
a *required* subcategory, but that such stories worked best running
together. One example of this is ficlets (double drabbles and other
similar variations). I did some number-crunching by hand (which is
always suspect, of course ý I do seem to make mistakes) and saw that
the size of comments received by ficlets in the same category as longer
pieces was significantly lower than longer pieces. This makes some
sense since they're shorter and there's less to comment on, but I think
the readers often wanted the ficlet to tell more than its form allowed.

My point is that larger categories give the categorisers more freedom
to make categories like this because we have more to work with. We
didn't have enough ficlets to make a subcategory viable this year, and
I doubt we will next year. But this is quite possibly an issue that's
best addressed by making ficlet a required subcategory just like
drabbles are, rather than trying to get fewer categories.

>> > 3. If we need less categories, how do you suggest we reduce the
>> number
>> > of categories?

All of you three seem to agree that we don't really need to reduce the
number of categories, and I find myself agreeing. You guys make some
good points, but at this point I'm thinking the best approach is not to
try to reduce the # of cats.

>> > 4. What should be the basis for subcategories? Should they be
>> stories
>> > involving the same character or theme, or is there another thing we
>> > should be using to determine subcategories?

> DWIM:
> Given that subcats are a rather free-wheeling, fluid creature, I'd be
> willing to accept a number of criteria as valid.

I agree, one set of criteria probably won't work well. In larger
categories if we divided them all based on any one thing (i.e., a
principle character) it's very possible some of the sub-cats would
still be too big. But I think this is a problem that people who weren't
involved behind the scenes might not see: categorisation this year was
messy, and each category was divided into sub-cats based on what that
category's categoriser wanted to have. This resulted in having certain
types of sub-cats in one cat and different types of sub-cats in another
category, with no apparent reason. So while I think this should remain
fluid, I think we're going to need *more* guidance on this matter.

I guess the first step on this is to see where there's a problem. I'll
make another post about this.

>> > 5. Do you prefer large categories (and so fewer of them) or smaller
>> > ones? Keep in mind that smaller categories may mean stories in
>> > mandatory subcategories have a bigger chance of being moved to
>> their
>> > second or third category choice.

> DWIM:
> I like my subcats just a little bigger--five is a bit small, IMO. So I
> don't mind larger subcategories.

Just to be clear, I was talking about the number of main categories,
not of subcategories. My concern was, if we have too few stories in
each category there's more a chance that there won't be enough poetry
to make a subcategory for it. Then those poems have to be shuffled
around. With larger categories there's less of a concern with this, but
I think people have pointed out other problems with having the
categories too large.

> So long as the entire category isn't made up exclusively of
> subcategories

Don't worry about that. There will always be stories in each category
that aren't moved into a subcategory. In programming terms I think
these stories that don't fit into a subcategory become in their own
right a subcategory. I've been referring to it as: RP: Elves/(no
subcategory) or RP: Elves/General or something similar. But this is
basically those stories that were not put in another subcategory.

> INKLING:
> Marta, did you mean SUBcategories?

I was talking about main categories (see above), but the question of
how large subcategories should be is a good one, too.

> If so, then I think around 10 stories in a subcat seems about rightý5
> is a bit small, and 15 a bit large.

I know I had definite mixed feelings about some of the drabble
categories that got so large (one had 25 entries, IIRC?). And you're
right, 5 did feel a bit small.

> If you *do* mean categories, then I guess I don't understand the
> question.

I explained what I was trying to ask in my reply to Dwim -- still clear
as mud?

> ISABEAU:
> Also agree with Dwim-I'd like to see ten stories a category before we
> break it into a subcategory.

Well, it would have to have ten stories because there would have to be
at least five in the subcategory and at least five stories not in any
subcategory. Maybe we should wait until we hit 15 stories before we
start looking at subcategories; that would give 6-7 in both the
subcategory and the un-subcategorized stories, I hope.

Marta

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

Hi Dwim,

> The question I would ask for refocusing this discussion:
>

Good questions! I wanted to make this a new post so they didn't get
lost.

> What is/are the problem/s with the current categorization scheme that
> we should be trying to answer?
>

I see a few.

First, I heard from a lot of authors and nominators that the current
form was confusing. Choose a first, second, and third choice category
-- but many people had a hard time knowing whether they should put
genre, books/time, or races/places first. I think your new form will go
a long way toward helping with that, and hopefully I can make up the
difference through the FAQs.

Second, some categories were very small and others were very large.
Naturally, competition for the three places will be stiffer where
there's more pieces competing, which means that a piece that might have
placed in one category won't get an honourable mention in a different
category.

Third, if a main category is too small, it will create more "orphans"
(pieces that have to be moved to their second- and third-choice
category. This will always happen *some*, but I think we need to
minimise it as much as possible.

Fourth, I often heard from authors who wondered why their piece was
competing in a certain subcategory and said that they would have
suggested it compete in one of the other subcategories if they had only
known that other subcategory would have been available. I think Dwim's
form will help a lot with this, as it gives authors a lot more guidance
in providing the kind of information we'd use to create subcategories.

> What are categories and subcategories primarily intended to do and for
> whom? That gives us the context from which to make sense of the answer
> to question one.
>

The function of a category is to group stories into groups that will
compare similar stories.

The first function of a sub-category is to break the larger categories
into manageable sizes so that there will not be thirty stories going
for three places in one category and seven stories going for three
places in another category - so there is roughly the same amount of
competition for awards regardless of the size of the category.

A secondary function of both the category and the subcategory is to
guide readers to stories they are more likely to enjoy.

That's my $.02, at least. :-)

Marta