Yahoo Forum Archive

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marta Layton" <melayton@gmail.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:47 PM
Subject: [MEFAwards] points and various voting matters


> Hey guys,
>
> This is the last issue that I think it's absolutely critical we discuss
> before next year's awards. This post-mortem surely has stretched out! I
> think we've covered a lot of good ground, and if I've started a topic
> and we never reached a decision, please remind me.
>
> Anyway... the topic is points and how votes will count. There are
> several issues. And if I forget any on this topic, feel free to speak
> up.
>
> First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and so
> feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the points
> they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at a lower
> level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively means that
> those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight. One such spread would
> be:
>
> 1-50 1 point
> 51-250 2 point
> 251-500 3 point
> 501-1000 4 point
> 1001+ 5 point
>
> I know that I tend to be pretty long-winded in my reviews, so I'm very
> interested in hearing frm people who struggled to write longer ones.
> Would this point spread work better?

It's possible. I know that generally, I wrote my reviews at first with no
regards to how the points fell, but just said what I felt about the story.
Then, for certain stories that I felt had exceptional merit, I went back and
added to the reviews to get higher point counts. I didn't go back to any and
remove words to get less points. However, I often felt the longer reviews
were "padded" and had less impact than my original shorter and more
heartfelt reviews. With a smaller point spread, this problem could be
avoided. It would also make it easier to do more reviews in a shorter time
period.

>
> Issue #2: honourable mentions. This year we awarded honourable mentions
> to stories who scored within three points of second place. But it
> occurs to me this may not be the best system because the larger
> categories were a lot more competitive. Think about it, in a
> sub-category with five stories the top 60% of stories received first,
> second, or third place, whereas in a sub-category with ten stories only
> the top 30% of stories received first, second, or third places. That
> means there will be more competition for the third place position in a
> larger category, and *that* means that the third place story will
> likely have a higher score than in a smaller category - which means
> stiffer competition for those honourable mention positions.
>
> I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award an
> honourable mention to all the stories that get a certain number of
> points and aren't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. For example, we could
> set the threshold at 20 points; if your story gets 20 points but isn't
> awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, it gets an honourable mention.
>
> Another way to address this is to assign honourable mentions based on
> the number of entries per category. For example, let's say we want to
> have the top half of stories receive a place award or an honourable
> mention. (Not that out-of-line when you consider 60% of the stories in
> a five-story category get an award.) Then we could just give honourable
> mentions to the top stories below the places until we reach this point.
> So
>
> 5-6 entries 0 Honourable Mentions
> 7-8 entries 1 Honourable Mention + 3 places = 4 awards = >50%
> 9-10 entries 2 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 5 award = >50%
> 11-12 entries 3 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 6 awards =>50%

I like this second formula better. It would be more fair than the current
system, yet not so complicated as your first suggestion. My only thing
would be an upward limit: say from 12 entries upwards, 4+3=7 and not go
beyond four honorable mentions, for I think that would dilute the value of
the award *too* much in the other direction.

Dreamflower
(Barbara)
>
> Etc.
>
> I'd personally be happy with either one.
>
> One more thing: the author awards. This one may be more strongly
> dictated by technical concerns. Would it be a good idea to have an easy
> way to enter the same author vote for all the categories where the
> author has works entered. For instance, this year I had to enter votes
> for Dreamflower for every one of the categories she had stories entered
> in, but the votes were the same. It would have been much easier to be
> able to go to vote for any one category, click a check-box of some sort
> and have this vote automatically entered in the other categories.
>
> Anthony, is this at all possible? If not it will be okay - it would be
> nice but isn't strictly necessary. (And thanks for all your hard work.)
>
> Barring that, can you guys think of any ways that we could make author
> voting run more smoothly?
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>This is the last issue that I think it's absolutely critical we

>>Anyway... the topic is points and how votes will count. There are

>>>Issue #2: honorable mentions. This year we awarded honorable

>>I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award an

>>>Another way to address this is to assign honorable mentions based

>>>>>>>>One more thing: the author awards. This one may be more

> First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and so
> feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the points
> they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at a lower
> level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively means that
> those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight. One such spread would
> be:
>
> 1-50 1 point
> 51-250 2 point
> 251-500 3 point
> 501-1000 4 point
> 1001+ 5 point

> Another way to address this is to assign honourable mentions based on
> the number of entries per category. For example, let's say we want to
> have the top half of stories receive a place award or an honourable
> mention. (Not that out-of-line when you consider 60% of the stories in
> a five-story category get an award.) Then we could just give honourable
> mentions to the top stories below the places until we reach this point.

> One more thing: the author awards. This one may be more strongly
> dictated by technical concerns. Would it be a good idea to have an easy
> way to enter the same author vote for all the categories where the
> author has works entered. For instance, this year I had to enter votes
> for Dreamflower for every one of the categories she had stories entered
> in, but the votes were the same. It would have been much easier to be
> able to go to vote for any one category, click a check-box of some sort
> and have this vote automatically entered in the other categories.

> Barring that, can you guys think of any ways that we could make author
> voting run more smoothly?

On 1/2/06, aelfwina@cableone.net <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marta Layton" <melayton@gmail.com>
> To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:47 PM
> Subject: [MEFAwards] points and various voting matters
>
>
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > This is the last issue that I think it's absolutely critical we discuss
> > before next year's awards. This post-mortem surely has stretched out! I
> > think we've covered a lot of good ground, and if I've started a topic
> > and we never reached a decision, please remind me.
> >
> > Anyway... the topic is points and how votes will count. There are
> > several issues. And if I forget any on this topic, feel free to speak
> > up.
> >
> > First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and so
> > feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the points
> > they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at a lower
> > level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively means that
> > those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight. One such spread would
> > be:
> >
> > 1-50 1 point
> > 51-250 2 point
> > 251-500 3 point
> > 501-1000 4 point
> > 1001+ 5 point
> >
> > I know that I tend to be pretty long-winded in my reviews, so I'm very
> > interested in hearing frm people who struggled to write longer ones.
> > Would this point spread work better?
>
> It's possible. I know that generally, I wrote my reviews at first with no
> regards to how the points fell, but just said what I felt about the story.
>
> Then, for certain stories that I felt had exceptional merit, I went back
> and
> added to the reviews to get higher point counts. I didn't go back to any
> and
> remove words to get less points. However, I often felt the longer reviews
>
> were "padded" and had less impact than my original shorter and more
> heartfelt reviews. With a smaller point spread, this problem could be
> avoided. It would also make it easier to do more reviews in a shorter
> time
> period.
>
> >
> > Issue #2: honourable mentions. This year we awarded honourable mentions
> > to stories who scored within three points of second place. But it
> > occurs to me this may not be the best system because the larger
> > categories were a lot more competitive. Think about it, in a
> > sub-category with five stories the top 60% of stories received first,
> > second, or third place, whereas in a sub-category with ten stories only
> > the top 30% of stories received first, second, or third places. That
> > means there will be more competition for the third place position in a
> > larger category, and *that* means that the third place story will
> > likely have a higher score than in a smaller category - which means
> > stiffer competition for those honourable mention positions.
> >
> > I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award an
> > honourable mention to all the stories that get a certain number of
> > points and aren't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. For example, we could
> > set the threshold at 20 points; if your story gets 20 points but isn't
> > awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, it gets an honourable mention.
> >
> > Another way to address this is to assign honourable mentions based on
> > the number of entries per category. For example, let's say we want to
> > have the top half of stories receive a place award or an honourable
> > mention. (Not that out-of-line when you consider 60% of the stories in
> > a five-story category get an award.) Then we could just give honourable
> > mentions to the top stories below the places until we reach this point.
> > So
> >
> > 5-6 entries 0 Honourable Mentions
> > 7-8 entries 1 Honourable Mention + 3 places = 4 awards = >50%
> > 9-10 entries 2 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 5 award = >50%
> > 11-12 entries 3 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 6 awards =>50%
>
> I like this second formula better. It would be more fair than the current
> system, yet not so complicated as your first suggestion. My only thing
> would be an upward limit: say from 12 entries upwards, 4+3=7 and not go
> beyond four honorable mentions, for I think that would dilute the value of
>
> the award *too* much in the other direction.
>
> Dreamflower
> (Barbara)
> >
> > Etc.
> >
> > I'd personally be happy with either one.
> >
> > One more thing: the author awards. This one may be more strongly
> > dictated by technical concerns. Would it be a good idea to have an easy
> > way to enter the same author vote for all the categories where the
> > author has works entered. For instance, this year I had to enter votes
> > for Dreamflower for every one of the categories she had stories entered
> > in, but the votes were the same. It would have been much easier to be
> > able to go to vote for any one category, click a check-box of some sort
> > and have this vote automatically entered in the other categories.
> >
> > Anthony, is this at all possible? If not it will be okay - it would be
> > nice but isn't strictly necessary. (And thanks for all your hard work.)
> >
> > Barring that, can you guys think of any ways that we could make author
> > voting run more smoothly?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marta
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Writing and publishing a book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+a+book+report&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Business+writing+book&w5=Writing+book&w6=Book+writing+software&c=6&s=158&.sig=5Hq4Nd6zG6tizNIjRcV4qg> Writing
> a book report<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book+report&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+a+book+report&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Business+writing+book&w5=Writing+book&w6=Book+writing+software&c=6&s=158&.sig=J8YBVYGqwgY19IiQISUUlQ> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+a+book+report&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Business+writing+book&w5=Writing+book&w6=Book+writing+software&c=6&s=158&.sig=lS64yceBGcj-7GhYdDZdqg> Business
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+a+book+report&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Business+writing+book&w5=Writing+book&w6=Book+writing+software&c=6&s=158&.sig=VPTepuXG9KG3-fgf5jtmGw> Writing
> book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+a+book+report&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Business+writing+book&w5=Writing+book&w6=Book+writing+software&c=6&s=158&.sig=HW7rfgtNi5TpJGhv5V-ftQ> Book
> writing software<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+a+book+report&w3=Writing+child+book&w4=Business+writing+book&w5=Writing+book&w6=Book+writing+software&c=6&s=158&.sig=xnbyLvyteEB1nAnDA09ezQ>
> ------------------------------
> 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]

>
> I wouldn't mess with the point system, unless it were to drop it in

>
> As far as the author review goes, I thought it was silly repeating

>
> I'd rather get an option to open up a second reply window after

>
> Of course, if the purpose of author reviews isn't tied to the story
> categories, you could approach it very differently.

>
> Also, I'm not sure why the 'step' has to be so short between points
> levels one and two, 2 and a half times as much as the first step in
> the next two categories, and then jump up by nearly the same amount
> between levels four and five as the move from level 1 to level 2 in
> the third. One of the nice things about this year's awards was that
> there were no such skips in the points structure--nice even,
> predictable intervals were, I thought, a good improvement on the

>>
>
>
> Topic we possibly have forgotten:
>
> How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from sources

> are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
> Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published author? Did
> we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.

> Thanks for all your work, Marta. This has definitely dragged out a
> bit, but you've persevered and kept pushing it forward.
>
> Dwim

>
>
> >
> > Topic we possibly have forgotten:
> >
> > How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from sources
> that
> > are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
> > Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published author? Did
> > we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.
>
>
> oh -yikes, yes... that's a biggie.

>
> On 1/2/06, sulriel <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Topic we possibly have forgotten:
> > >
> > > How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from sources
> > that
> > > are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
> > > Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published author? Did
> > > we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.
> >
> >
> > oh -yikes, yes... that's a biggie.
>
>
>
> Yes. I'd say anything and everything from within the story under
> review should be inside <blockquotes> tags, but for stuff from JRRT

> sources... hmm. That's tougher. Might be a judgment call for the

> Is the quote filler, or pertinent to the review?

> I'd think it would be a
> situation which wouldn't often arise, but I don't know. Did it

> year?

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> Anyway... the topic is points and how votes will count. There are
> several issues. And if I forget any on this topic, feel free to
> speak up.
>
> First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and
> so feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the
> points they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at
> a lower level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively
> means that those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight. One such
> spread would be:
>
> 1-50 1 point
> 51-250 2 point
> 251-500 3 point
> 501-1000 4 point
> 1001+ 5 point
>
> I know that I tend to be pretty long-winded in my reviews, so I'm
> very interested in hearing frm people who struggled to write longer
> ones. Would this point spread work better?

Overall, this seems like a good idea, although I too wonder why the
point spread is so unevenly distributed. What about something like
this:

points characters
1 1-150
2 151-300
3 301-450
4 451-600
5 601+

I just took a look at my 2005 reviews and saw that in most cases I
was able to say what I wanted to say in about 300-500 characters. And
I didn't try to pad or manipulate my votes at all. If I find I want
to say more about a particular story, I have no problem with it
capping off at 5 points.

> Issue #2: honourable mentions. This year we awarded honourable
> mentions to stories who scored within three points of second place.
> But it occurs to me this may not be the best system because the
> larger categories were a lot more competitive.
> <snip>
> I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award an
> honourable mention to all the stories that get a certain number of
> points and aren't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. For example, we
> could set the threshold at 20 points; if your story gets 20 points
> but isn't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, it gets an honourable
> mention.

I have some reservations about this option. For one thing, in lightly
reviewed categories there might be NO stories that met the threshold
number, including 1st place. But as someone pointed out, adjusting
the threshold after the fact would surely be controversial.

> Another way to address this is to assign honourable mentions based
> on the number of entries per category. For example, let's say we
> want to have the top half of stories receive a place award or an
> honourable mention. (Not that out-of-line when you consider 60% of
> the stories in a five-story category get an award.) Then we could
> just give honourable mentions to the top stories below the places
> until we reach this point.
>
> 5-6 entries 0 Honourable Mentions
> 7-8 entries 1 Honourable Mention + 3 places = 4 awards = 50%
> 9-10 entries 2 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 5 awards = 50%
> 11-12 entries 3 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 6 awards = 50%

This approach seems good to me, although I agree with Dreamflower
that there should be a cutoff at 3 or 4 honorable mentions.

> One more thing: the author awards.

Truth to tell, I still don't understand these awards even though I've
read the explanations several times over. One problem is that
although in theory they are supposed to be different than story
awards, in practice I have read many author awards that seemed
virtually indistinguishable from story awards. And there are so many
of them! Is there some way to simplify these...like just having one
set of author awards per category rather than for every subcategory?
Or alternatively, having just one author award per subcategory rather
than 1st, 2nd, 3rd and HMs?

Kathy (Inkling)

On 1/2/06, dwimmer_laik <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of quotations that are pertinent to the review.
> > I'd think it would be a
> > situation which wouldn't often arise, but I don't know. Did it
> happen this
> > year?
>
> Yes. I did it at least twice, causing you to throw rocks in my
> general, northerly direction. ;-) I don't recall if other reviewers
> did this, but I imagine many people may think associatively and want
> to incorporate useful phrases and quotes from other works as they
> explain why story X is good reading.
>
> Dwim
>
>
>


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

>> I wouldn't mess with the point system, unless it were to drop it in
> favor of> straight character counts.
>
> I have to say that I wouldn't be in favor of using straight character
> counts because one long glowing review could effectively keep the

> 750

> 1000 = 500 + 50% of chars between 500 and 750 + 25% of

> 1100 (either no additional, like present, or 5% of additional chars)

>> As far as the author review goes, I thought it was silly repeating
> author> reviews over and over and over this year and scattering them
> willy-nilly> strikes me as sillier, because the way they were
> presented, they were to> award an author for having a particular
> strength in a particular subject> area.
>
>
> I'd be fine with having a single set of authors' awards without
> having them by category. Their strengths could be commented on in
> the text of the review/vote (great at drabbling, espcially Hobbits,
> but also shows great talent in Elves, ...etc..)

>>
>> I'd rather get an option to open up a second reply window after
> I've done a> story review, with a copy of the same review already
> entered, but editable,> which might be submitted as an author review.
>>
>> Of course, if the purpose of author reviews isn't tied to the story
>> categories, you could approach it very differently.
>
>
> Great idea to automatically open an author's review window as a
> prompt when the story review is opened.

>> First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and
>> so feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the
>> points they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at
>> a lower level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively
>> means that those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight. One such
>> spread would be:
>>
>> 1-50 1 point
>> 51-250 2 point
>> 251-500 3 point
>> 501-1000 4 point
>> 1001+ 5 point
>>
>> I know that I tend to be pretty long-winded in my reviews, so I'm
>> very interested in hearing frm people who struggled to write longer
>> ones.
>> Would this point spread work better?

>> 5-6 entries 0 Honourable Mentions
>> 7-8 entries 1 Honourable Mention + 3 places = 4 awards = >50%
>> 9-10 entries 2 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 5 award = >50%
>> 11-12 entries 3 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 6 awards =>50%

>> One more thing: the author awards. This one may be more strongly
>> dictated by technical concerns. Would it be a good idea to have an
>> easy way to enter the same author vote for all the categories where
>> the author has works entered. For instance, this year I had to
>> enter votes for Dreamflower for every one of the categories she had
>> stories entered in, but the votes were the same. It would have been
>> much easier to be able to go to vote for any one category, click a
>> check-box of some sort and have this vote automatically entered in
>> the other categories.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laura" <thunderalaura@juno.com>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] points and various voting matters

(snip)

v> I'm honestly not trying to play devil's advocate. Really, I'm not! And I
think we've had some excellent ideas out of the post-mortem. But I have to
weigh in as _strongly_ opposed to a change in the point levels. At least, a
change like the one proposed.
>
> Granted, I'm probably among the long-winded reviewers, but be that as it
> may, if I rambled off a review and hit as many aspects of the story as I
> could, I only got up to about 5 points on average. On rare occasions, I
> could hit 6. But that was if I rambled, and I caught most of those when I
> went back through and edited the reviews. That being said, I know I gave
> out several 10-point reviews, quite a few 9-point reviews, and even more
> 8-pointers and 7-pointers. For all of them, I went back and put in enough
> effort to get the story that high because I felt that strongly about it. I
> think there should be a difference between a 2-point story and a 10-point
> story, and I think the margin between points should reflect that.
> Furthermore, if I go to the effort to get a 1001-character review, I want
> it to count. I want the author to get those ten points.
>
> Granted again that one of the big appeals of these awards are the reviews
> rather than the points garnered by the reviews. But if the point cap is 5
> and the difference between a 250-character review and a 1001-character
> review is 3 points, there's really not much of an incentive to go the
> extra mile and give the story you're reviewing those extra 3.
> Competition-wise, it doesn't make that much of a difference. But as far as
> the quality of the reviews is concerned, I think there is a difference.
> happen to think that the 1000+ reviews are good ego boosters. I like
> receiving them, and I like giving them. And I think there's more incentive
> to give them if it actually makes a difference in the competition.
>
> In the end, I suppose it comes down to what our priorities are. In my
> opinion, a higher point cap (eg: the current 10 points) encourages longer
> reviews and rewards stories that deserve said reviews. A lower point cap
> (eg: the proposed 5 points) might encourage more reviews, but on average,
> they would be shorter as the competitive advantage gained by long reviews
> would be lost. I think someone once mentioned reviews that were quick
> blips. With a lower cap, I think we'd see a lot more of those. So do we
> want our focus on quality or on quantity? I vote for quality. I think it
> does more for writing. Personally, I would much rather have one in-depth
> 6- or 7-point review than five quick blips of "Thanks, that was great."
> I'm grateful for both, don't get me wrong. But I learn more from the
> former than I do for the latter.


Well, as I said previously, my reviews were pretty much what I would have
said anyway. But I don't think longer necessarily means more quality. When
I did put in the extra effort to bring the point count up for some stories,
I felt that the reviews actually lost some impact. Unlike stories, which
benefit from polishing, I think reviews are more meaningful when they come
directly from the reader's first heartfelt impression.

And near the end of the competition, I did not have the time to do that, so
there were a few exceptional stories that did not get the benefit of
"padding".

Still, I find myself rethinking my original support of the idea, for I
wonder if the end result might not be a great many stories all getting the
same number of points. I noticed that at the beginning of the competition,
my reviews tended to average about 8 points, in the middle, that went down
to about 3, and then near the end, that dropped to about 2. I *still* might
have to add to some reviews.

But on the other hand, with a lower character count, I might only need to
add one or two words, as opposed to several repetitive sentences...

I don't know...
>
>
>>> 5-6 entries 0 Honourable Mentions
>>> 7-8 entries 1 Honourable Mention + 3 places = 4 awards = >50%
>>> 9-10 entries 2 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 5 award = >50%
>>> 11-12 entries 3 Honourable Mentions + 3 places = 6 awards =>50%
>
> For what it's worth, I like this formula for Honorable Mentions.
>
>>> One more thing: the author awards. This one may be more strongly
>>> dictated by technical concerns. Would it be a good idea to have an
>>> easy way to enter the same author vote for all the categories where
>>> the author has works entered. For instance, this year I had to
>>> enter votes for Dreamflower for every one of the categories she had
>>> stories entered in, but the votes were the same. It would have been
>>> much easier to be able to go to vote for any one category, click a
>>> check-box of some sort and have this vote automatically entered in
>>> the other categories.
>
> If this is possible, I'd be okay with it. But I have to point out a few
> questions/concerns:
>
> Poetry vs Prose - There are fanfic authors out there who write primarily
> prose and some who write primarily poetry. There are even a few who do
> ONLY one or the other. And there are far more readers of prose than there
> are of poetry. Would we give the poets a disadvantage? Or is there still
> some way of dividing out the poets from the prose writers? Same thing with
> the drabbles. Can we filter them out? Or is that too complicated?
>
> Categories - Would this effectively eliminate author awards within
> categories? Essentially, would we have one giant award for authors where
> every author entered competes? Because I see a problem with that, too.
> Let's say Author A writes great Nazgul stories and has one amazing story
> in the villains' category. But not a lot of people read the villains
> category, so Author A only gets one author vote. Now let's say that very
> prolific Author B has stories entered in drama, hobbits, elves, men,
> humor, adventure, Lord of the Rings, etc. Lots of people read those and
> they like this author, so Author B gets many author votes. Now, Author B
> also has a story entered in villains, but it's not as good as the one that
> Author A entered. So Author A's story wins villains, but Author A gets no
> author award because very few reviewers will ever read Author A's story.
>
> Is this making any sense? Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that
> prolific authors who write in popular categories would have an unfair
> advantage in the author awards over less well-known authors who write in
> more obscure categories.
>
> I think *something* has to change with the author awards, but I really
> don't know what or how. That's why I can't say no to this solution. It's
> the best one I've seen yet, and I have no alternatives to offer. But I
> think there are still things we need to work out. Either that or do away
> with author awards entirely. I wouldn't be happy with that, but I can't
> say that I'm completely happy with the system as it currently stands.
>

I never even got to enter any author reviews. Part of it, of course was a
lack of time. But also there was the factor of not really understanding how
they worked.

Dreamflower

> *crawling back under her rock*
> Thundera
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <snip>
> In the end, I suppose it comes down to what our priorities are. In

>

>> I heartily agree that review quality is more important than
>> quantity. But are short reviews necessarily of lesser quality than
>> long ones? While I'll admit that my reviews got progressively
>> shorter as the voting deadline approached, I tried to say
>> something substantive in each of them, and don't believe that my 3-
>> and 4-pointers were inferior to my longer ones.

>> Were there many "Thanks, that was great" reviews in the MEFAs? I
>> don't recall seeing any. In fact, the thing that impressed me the
>> most about the MEFAs was the quality of the reviews, whether long
>> or short. I received some short reviews that I was very happy
>> with...it's actually rather impressive to see how much can be
>> conveyed in 300-400 characters!

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Laura" <thunderalaura@j...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > In the end, I suppose it comes down to what our priorities are. In
> my opinion, a higher point cap (eg: the current 10 points) encourages
> longer reviews and rewards stories that deserve said reviews. A lower
> point cap (eg: the proposed 5 points) might encourage more reviews,
> but on average, they would be shorter as the competitive advantage
> gained by long reviews would be lost.
> latter.

> I heartily agree that review quality is more important than quantity.
> But are short reviews necessarily of lesser quality than
> long ones?

>
> "Marta Layton" <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >> First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and
> >> so feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the
> >> points they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at
> >> a lower level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively
> >> means that those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight. One such
> >> spread would be:
> >>
> >> 1-50 1 point
> >> 51-250 2 point
> >> 251-500 3 point
> >> 501-1000 4 point
> >> 1001+ 5 point
> >>
> >> I know that I tend to be pretty long-winded in my reviews, so I'm
> >> very interested in hearing frm people who struggled to write longer
> >> ones.
> >> Would this point spread work better?
>
> *chiming in once more as the voice of dissent*
>
> I'm honestly not trying to play devil's advocate. Really, I'm not!

>
> Granted, I'm probably among the long-winded reviewers, but be that
> as it may, if I rambled off a review and hit as many aspects of the
> story as I could, I only got up to about 5 points on average. On
> rare occasions, I could hit 6. But that was if I rambled, and I
> caught most of those when I went back through and edited the
> reviews. That being said, I know I gave out several 10-point
> reviews, quite a few 9-point reviews, and even more 8-pointers and
> 7-pointers. For all of them, I went back and put in enough effort to
> get the story that high because I felt that strongly about it. I
> think there should be a difference between a 2-point story and a
> 10-point story, and I think the margin between points should reflect
> that. Furthermore, if I go to the effort to get a 1001-character
> review, I want it to count. I want the author to get those ten
> points.

> Competition-wise, it doesn't make that much of a difference. But as
> far as the quality of the reviews is concerned, I think there is a
> difference. happen to think that the 1000+ reviews are good ego
> boosters. I like receiving them, and I like giving them. And I think

> difference in the competition.

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@v...>

> I have to say that I wouldn't be in favor of using straight character
> counts because one long glowing review could effectively keep the
> other stories out of the running. I like the point system because
> while it allows for more or less points, it also somewhat levels the
> playing field. I think that using a straight character would would
> have the effect of lessening the motivation of the readers leaving
> the shorter reviews because (I'm guessing) they'd feel that it
> wouldn't make any difference.

> I'd be fine with having a single set of authors' awards without
> having them by category. Their strengths could be commented on in
> the text of the review/vote (great at drabbling, espcially Hobbits,
> but also shows great talent in Elves, ...etc..)

> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:12:08 -0000
> From: "sulriel" <Sulriel@htcomp.net>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters
>
>
>
>
>>>>> Anyway... the topic is points and how votes will count. There are
>>> several issues. And if I forget any on this topic, feel free to speak
>>> up.First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and
>>> so
>>> feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the
>>> points
>>> they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at a lower
>>> level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively means that
>>> those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight. One such spread would
>>> be:1-50 1 point
>>> 51-250 2 point
>>> 251-500 3 point
>>> 501-1000 4 point
>>> 1001+ 5 point
>>>
>
>
> I support this change. If I remember, we talked privately and my
> suggestion was for an even more dramatic change. ... a point spread
> of 1-3 points, or a 1-5 with a maximum counted character count of 500
> instead of a 1000. (? it's been too long and I'm still on my first
> coffee this morning) But I would be happy with the suggestion above.
>

> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:14:30 -0000
> From: "sulriel" <Sulriel@htcomp.net>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> Issue #2: honorable mentions. This year we awarded honorable
>>> mentions
>>> to stories who scored within three points of second place. But it
>>> occurs to me this may not be the best system because the larger
>>> categories were a lot more competitive. Think about it, in a
>>> sub-category with five stories the top 60% of stories received first,
>>> second, or third place, whereas in a sub-category with ten stories
>>> only
>>> the top 30% of stories received first, second, or third places. That
>>> means there will be more competition for the third place position in
>>> a
>>> larger category, and *that* means that the third place story will
>>> likely have a higher score than in a smaller category - which means
>>> stiffer competition for those honorable mention positions.
>
>
> I'm ok with the HMs being within a count or percent of the total
> points because I feel like it rewards the 'likability' of the story
> and correctly conveys the reader's votes. If there are 5 stories in
> a cate or 20 .... if the point spread is so close, the HMs show what
> a close race it was, and I like that.
>
> What about making them be within a three points of first place
> instead of second? or the top ? % of the point spread? or within ? %
> points of first place?
>

>>>>> I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award an
>>> honorable mention to all the stories that get a certain number of
>>> points and aren't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. For example, we
>>> could
>>> set the threshold at 20 points; if your story gets 20 points but
>>> isn't
>>> awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, it gets an honorable mention.
>>>
>
> I think this is an overall good idea and would be ok if it were
> implemented, but I think it would be a difficult call to set that
> number, especially if we change the point system.
>

>
>>>
>>>>>> Another way to address this is to assign honorable mentions based
>>> on
>>> the number of entries per category. For example, let's say we want to
>>> have the top half of stories receive a place award or an honorable
>>> mention. (Not that out-of-line when you consider 60% of the stories
>>> in
>>> a five-story category get an award.) Then we could just give
>>> honorable
>>> mentions to the top stories below the places until we reach this
>>> point.
>
>
> I know that some judged contests do this and I highly support it in
> those venues, and I would support it here, but I don't think that
> it reflects the spirit of the awards as well as the first option,
> especially if we reward those who place within a percent of points of
> first place.
>
>
>

> >>>>>> Issue #2: honorable mentions. This year we awarded honorable
> >>> mentions> >>> to stories who scored within three points of

> >>> a> >>> larger category, and *that* means that the third place

> >
> >
> > I'm ok with the HMs being within a count or percent of the total
> > points because I feel like it rewards the 'likability' of the

> >
> > What about making them be within a three points of first place
> > instead of second? or the top ? % of the point spread? or

> >
>
> I think these are likely to overly favor a smaller subcategory if
> there's a "power-house" in a small category that drives the number

>
>


>
> >>>>> I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award an
> >>> honorable mention to all the stories that get a certain number

> >
> > I think this is an overall good idea and would be ok if it were
> > implemented, but I think it would be a difficult call to set that
> > number, especially if we change the point system.
> >
>
> You're right, this would be a problem, but I'm not sure it's any

> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:17:58 -0000
> From: "sulriel" <Sulriel@htcomp.net>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters

>>> One more thing: the author awards. This one may be more
>>> strongly
>>> dictated by technical concerns. Would it be a good idea to have an
>>> easy way to enter the same author vote for all the categories where
>>> the
>>> author has works entered. For instance, this year I had to enter
>>> votes
>>> for Dreamflower for every one of the categories she had stories
>>> entered in, but the votes were the same. It would have been much
>>> easier to be able to go to vote for any one category, click a check-
>>> box of some sort and have this vote automatically entered in the
>>> other
>>> categories.
>
>
> I agree with entering one vote per author and having it automatically
> go to them in all the categories in which they have stories entered.
>
> I know there are arguments against this, and I agree with them in
> part, - that someone may be stronger in some genre or elements than in
> others, but I also know there has been a lot of confusion and
> questions and problems with the readers understanding and voting in
> the author review section and I think the simplification of the above
> suggestion would outweigh the lack of flexibility.
>

> >>>>>> Another way to address this is to assign honorable mentions

> >
> >
> > I know that some judged contests do this and I highly support it

> >
> >> >> > How is this not in keeping with the spirit of the awards? Is

>
> 1. Give honourable mentions to enough stories so that 50% get either
> 1st, 2nd, 3rd place or an honourable mention.
> 2. Give honourable mentions to any stories with the same number of >

>
> I have to admit that this is my favourite option, provided it's >

>
> Marta

>
>
>
> Let me be clear about this (because I think I'm being misinterpreted
> further down in the digest): I'm not suggesting we have one giant
> category for all authors. I'm actually pretty against this.
>
> What I *am* suggesting is that a person be able to enter a review for
> an author and have it automatically generate reviews with the same text
> in all other categories in which that author is entered. To give an
> example... let's say someone has the following nominations:
>
> - "The Trouble With Brandybucks" in "Hobbits : Fourth Age"
> - "Envinyatar" in "Drama : Drabble"
> - "A Dwarf Among Elves" in "LOTR : Lothlorien".
>
> This author is then entered in the following author categories.
>
> - Hobbits : General Authors
> - LOTR : General Authors
> - Drama : Drabble Authors
>
> Let's say I'm looking at the nominations for "Drama : Drabble". I see a
> listing for "Envinyatar", and by that drabble I see a link to vote on
> the story, and a second like to vote for the author. I click on the
> second link, and it takes me to a page where I can enter that vote.
> What I'm proposing is that we have a check-box that I could click, and
> whatever I enter for "Drama : Drabble Authors" is also entered as a
> vote for "Hobbits : General Authors" and "LOTR : General Authors".
>
> If you do want to customise the vote to the subcategory you could just
> not click that check-box and enter separate reviews when you're ready.
>
> Going back to my example, let's say I submitted a vote for all the
> categories and want to go back and change them all. I could edit the
> review and click the check-box, and it would make the changes to all
> the different reviews. Alternatively, if I only wanted to change the
> "Hobbits : General Authors" one, I could navigate to "The Trouble With
> Brandybucks", click the link to edit the existing author review, make
> my changes, and save the review *without* clicking the checkbox.
>
> I'm honestly not sure if this is practical. But that's what I'm
> suggesting - *not* stripping down to a single authors' category.
>
> Marta

>> What I *am* suggesting is that a person be able to enter a review
>> for an author and have it automatically generate reviews with the
>> same text in all other categories in which that author is entered.
>> To give an example... let's say someone has the following
>> nominations:
>>
>> - "The Trouble With Brandybucks" in "Hobbits : Fourth Age"
>> - "Envinyatar" in "Drama : Drabble"
>> - "A Dwarf Among Elves" in "LOTR : Lothlorien".
>>
>> This author is then entered in the following author categories.
>>
>> - Hobbits : General Authors
>> - LOTR : General Authors
>> - Drama : Drabble Authors
>>
>> Let's say I'm looking at the nominations for "Drama : Drabble". I
>> see a listing for "Envinyatar", and by that drabble I see a link to
>> vote on the story, and a second like to vote for the author. I
>> click on the second link, and it takes me to a page where I can
>> enter that vote. What I'm proposing is that we have a check-box
>> that I could click, and whatever I enter for "Drama : Drabble
>> Authors" is also entered as a vote for "Hobbits : General Authors"
>> and "LOTR : General Authors".

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Laura" <thunderalaura@j...> wrote:
>
> -- Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >> What I *am* suggesting is that a person be able to enter a
review
> >> for an author and have it automatically generate reviews with
the
> >> same text in all other categories in which that author is
entered.
> >> To give an example... let's say someone has the following
> >> nominations:
> >>
> >> - "The Trouble With Brandybucks" in "Hobbits : Fourth Age"
> >> - "Envinyatar" in "Drama : Drabble"
> >> - "A Dwarf Among Elves" in "LOTR : Lothlorien".
> >>
> >> This author is then entered in the following author categories.
> >>
> >> - Hobbits : General Authors
> >> - LOTR : General Authors
> >> - Drama : Drabble Authors
> >>
> >> Let's say I'm looking at the nominations for "Drama : Drabble".
I
> >> see a listing for "Envinyatar", and by that drabble I see a link
to
> >> vote on the story, and a second like to vote for the author. I
> >> click on the second link, and it takes me to a page where I can
> >> enter that vote. What I'm proposing is that we have a check-box
> >> that I could click, and whatever I enter for "Drama : Drabble
> >> Authors" is also entered as a vote for "Hobbits : General
Authors"
> >> and "LOTR : General Authors".
>
> Okay, that clears things up. Thanks.
>
> However...I've got some major reservations with this idea. I still
like the idea of either changing the author awards or doing away with
them entirely, but I can't get behind this proposal and here's why:
>
> Let's say we have an author. We'll name him Fred. Fred has possibly
the best fanfiction ever written entered in the Silmarillion
category. Fred himself is an amazing author but has only written one
story. That story blows all competition out of the water, but it's
still just one story. And being a Silmarillion story, it doesn't get
as much attention as other stories might.
>
> Now let's say we have another author. We'll call her Fredita.
Fredita is a pretty good author. She has some pretty good stories.
She's prolific. She's well-known. She has a large and faithful
following. Fredita has entries in Hobbits, Elves, Men, Dwarves,
Drama, Adventure, and one little vignette in Silmarillion that she
did on a dare.
>
> The voting season begins. People read Fredita's stories because
they're good stories and they're familiar. A few adventurous souls
try Fred's story in Silmarillion and discover it to be the best thing
they ever read. They give him glowing author reviews as a result,
knowing he is hands-down the best Silmarillion author out there.
>
> In the meantime, Fredita's faithful following is reading her
stories in Hobbits, Elves, Men, Drama, and Adventure. They find her
to be the pretty good author they've come to expect and they give her
pretty good reviews. Being faithful fans, they wish they could do
more, but being faithful fans mired in reality, they're also pressed
for time. So they compromise and click the box that duplicates their
author reviews throughout the system.
>
> Voting season ends. Fred's Silmarillion story clearly wins its
subcategory. But Fred himself, despite being a brilliant author, gets
no author award because Fredita's accumulation of pretty good reviews
written elsewhere in the system were enough to beat out Fred's few
glowing reviews written by those who'd actually taken the time to
stroll through the Silmarillion category.
>
> And the moral?
>
> Difficult to say, actually. Writing is such a subjective thing that
you could argue a pretty good writer who's able to get by in multiple
areas is a better writer than someone who is able to completely
dominate in just one. But that doesn't feel like a fair way to run
awards, especially if we still intend to separate the authors into
their various categories. Sure, you can still duplicate an author
review throughout the system by saving and then going through by hand
and pasting it in. But that takes time, and not everyone is going to
do that. Plus, those who do it at least have to LOOK at the
categories when they go through to give their authors a review.
Giving reviewers a box to click makes it too easy and, in my mind,
invites blanket reviews when blanket reviews might not be deserved.
>
> Anyway, that's my major reservation to a box that will ease the
propogation of duplicate author reviews. I hope something up there
made sense. I'm actually opposed to duplicate author reviews in the
first place, but given time constraints and the current system, I
don't see a way past those. I would, however, like to see something
in place (such as the forced copying and pasting) that would limit
the number of duplicate reviews going around.
>
> Just my two cents for whatever the current economy deems that to be
worth.
>
> Thundera
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> - No, don't move, mister. You stand where I can see you and
> no harm will come to you.
> - Yes, but if I stand where you can't see me, I don't see
> how any harm could come to me there, either.
> William and "Deep Bone"--Discworld: The Truth
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>

>Giving reviewers a box to click makes it too easy and, in my >mind, invites blanket reviews when blanket reviews might not be >deserved.

>-- Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What I *am* suggesting is that a person be able to enter a review
>>> for an author and have it automatically generate reviews with the
>>> same text in all other categories in which that author is entered.
>>> To give an example... let's say someone has the following
>>> nominations:
>>>
>>> - "The Trouble With Brandybucks" in "Hobbits : Fourth Age"
>>> - "Envinyatar" in "Drama : Drabble"
>>> - "A Dwarf Among Elves" in "LOTR : Lothlorien".
>>>
>>> This author is then entered in the following author categories.
>>>
>>> - Hobbits : General Authors
>>> - LOTR : General Authors
>>> - Drama : Drabble Authors
>>>
>>> Let's say I'm looking at the nominations for "Drama : Drabble". I
>>> see a listing for "Envinyatar", and by that drabble I see a link to
>>> vote on the story, and a second like to vote for the author. I
>>> click on the second link, and it takes me to a page where I can
>>> enter that vote. What I'm proposing is that we have a check-box
>>> that I could click, and whatever I enter for "Drama : Drabble
>>> Authors" is also entered as a vote for "Hobbits : General Authors"
>>> and "LOTR : General Authors".
>
>Okay, that clears things up. Thanks.
>
>However...I've got some major reservations with this idea. I still like the idea of either changing the author awards or doing away with them entirely, but I can't get behind this proposal and here's why:
>
>Let's say we have an author. We'll name him Fred. Fred has possibly the best fanfiction ever written entered in the Silmarillion category. Fred himself is an amazing author but has only written one story. That story blows all competition out of the water, but it's still just one story. And being a Silmarillion story, it doesn't get as much attention as other stories might.
>
>Now let's say we have another author. We'll call her Fredita. Fredita is a pretty good author. She has some pretty good stories. She's prolific. She's well-known. She has a large and faithful following. Fredita has entries in Hobbits, Elves, Men, Dwarves, Drama, Adventure, and one little vignette in Silmarillion that she did on a dare.
>
>The voting season begins. People read Fredita's stories because they're good stories and they're familiar. A few adventurous souls try Fred's story in Silmarillion and discover it to be the best thing they ever read. They give him glowing author reviews as a result, knowing he is hands-down the best Silmarillion author out there.
>
>In the meantime, Fredita's faithful following is reading her stories in Hobbits, Elves, Men, Drama, and Adventure. They find her to be the pretty good author they've come to expect and they give her pretty good reviews. Being faithful fans, they wish they could do more, but being faithful fans mired in reality, they're also pressed for time. So they compromise and click the box that duplicates their author reviews throughout the system.
>
>Voting season ends. Fred's Silmarillion story clearly wins its subcategory. But Fred himself, despite being a brilliant author, gets no author award because Fredita's accumulation of pretty good reviews written elsewhere in the system were enough to beat out Fred's few glowing reviews written by those who'd actually taken the time to stroll through the Silmarillion category.
>
>And the moral?
>
>Difficult to say, actually. Writing is such a subjective thing that you could argue a pretty good writer who's able to get by in multiple areas is a better writer than someone who is able to completely dominate in just one. But that doesn't feel like a fair way to run awards, especially if we still intend to separate the authors into their various categories. Sure, you can still duplicate an author review throughout the system by saving and then going through by hand and pasting it in. But that takes time, and not everyone is going to do that. Plus, those who do it at least have to LOOK at the categories when they go through to give their authors a review. Giving reviewers a box to click makes it too easy and, in my mind, invites blanket reviews when blanket reviews might not be deserved.
>
>Anyway, that's my major reservation to a box that will ease the propogation of duplicate author reviews. I hope something up there made sense. I'm actually opposed to duplicate author reviews in the first place, but given time constraints and the current system, I don't see a way past those. I would, however, like to see something in place (such as the forced copying and pasting) that would limit the number of duplicate reviews going around.
>
>Just my two cents for whatever the current economy deems that to be worth.
>
>Thundera
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>- No, don't move, mister. You stand where I can see you and
>  no harm will come to you.
>- Yes, but if I stand where you can't see me, I don't see
>  how any harm could come to me there, either.
>     William and "Deep Bone"--Discworld: The Truth
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

On 1/4/06, Kathy <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> In consideration of the Freds out there, I agree with Thundera. And I
> have to question a system that permits an author review in a drabble
> category to be duplicated in a general category, whether it's done
> automatically or manually. The skills just seem too different to me.
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>


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

> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:26:31 -0500
> From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: points and various voting matters
>
> On 1/2/06, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Topic we possibly have forgotten:
>>>
>>> How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from sources
>> that
>>> are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
>>> Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published author? Did
>>> we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.
>>
>>
>> oh -yikes, yes... that's a biggie.
>
>
>
> Yes. I'd say anything and everything from within the story under
> review should be inside <blockquotes> tags, but for stuff from JRRT or
> other
> sources... hmm. That's tougher. Might be a judgment call for the
> admins.
> Is the quote filler, or pertinent to the review? I'd think it would
> be a
> situation which wouldn't often arise, but I don't know. Did it happen
> this
> year?
>

> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:09:04 -0000
> From: "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@v...> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/2/06, sulriel <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Topic we possibly have forgotten:
>>>>
>>>> How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from sources
>>> that
>>>> are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
>>>> Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published author? Did
>>>> we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.
>>>
>>>
>>> oh -yikes, yes... that's a biggie.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. I'd say anything and everything from within the story under
>> review should be inside <blockquotes> tags, but for stuff from JRRT
> or other
>> sources... hmm. That's tougher. Might be a judgment call for the
> admins.
>> Is the quote filler, or pertinent to the review?
>
> I'm thinking of quotations that are pertinent to the review.
>> I'd think it would be a
>> situation which wouldn't often arise, but I don't know. Did it
> happen this
>> year?
>
> Yes. I did it at least twice, causing you to throw rocks in my
> general, northerly direction. ;-) I don't recall if other reviewers
> did this, but I imagine many people may think associatively and want
> to incorporate useful phrases and quotes from other works as they
> explain why story X is good reading.
>

>
> Ok, so with author reviews, we've got the problem of the Freds of

> world versus the Freditas, and the sense that author awards are
> artificially fragmenting an author's work, encouraging meaningless
> repetition of reviews which then results in bizarre rankings, where
> someone wins an author award for "The Hobbit" drabbles on the basis

> work s/he did as a novelist in the Horror category and some humor
> pieces. Also, it's not always clear how to distinguish the author
> review from the story review, leading to questions about why we

> allow copying author reviews and not copying of story reviews.
>
> We need a compromise that gives us sensible author review

>
> 1) do not seem artificially to fragment an author's work, resulting

> weird copy-pastes that result in even weirder rankings;
>
> 2) are distinct enough from story reviews that we don't just repeat

> extend story reviews;
>
> 3) are not so all-inclusive as to make competition absolutely

>
> 4) are organized in a manner that is less confusing all around,
> thereby encouraging more people to actually review authors.
>
> What if we changed things up somewhat for author awards and looked

> *forms* of writing? Poetry, non-fiction, ficlet, short story,

> novel, drabble, drabble cycle: these are all things that authors

> have to select when filling out their story forms. So it's not like
> we'd be making any executive decisions about how to classify an
> author's work--the author has done it for us. That would be a big
> benefit, requiring no extra work or forms for anyone.
>
> The other benefit would be that we consolidate groups of authors
> across the story-awards genres and subgenres into logical categories
> that are specific enough that we have some idea of how to compare

> authors. The form of their writing holds them together across the
> divisions we'd imposed to judge stories against each other, so it
> wouldn't work to just copy a review about an author's skill as a
> writer of novels into the poet category, for example. It makes sense
> to write a different review.
>
> At the same time, using form instead of content as the basis of
> categorizing the author awards gives us enough abstraction that we
> don't need to deal with author awards in subcategories, which would
> cut down on a sense of pernicious repetition. It's also just

> an already existing trend (see below).
>
> Now, it is true, there's a reason we split the stories into

> categories and subcategories--but we've got the story awards to deal
> with recognizing merits of specific content. Author awards are (I
> think) about assessing individual style and a more general sense of
> substance within certain, more abstract bounds than "Silmarillion:
> drabble cycle", for example. So we're not doing an injustice by
> comparing incomparables here.
>
> Would it be more competitive than the current scenario? Yes, it

> be. There would be more people competing for author awards under any
> form-based category than in any individual story category since
> *every* drabbler and *every* novelist would be elligible for an

> award for writing drabbles or novels, irrespective of whether they
> wrote the novel about Silm characters of Ring-war characters,

> they wrote the drabbles about hobbits or dragons.
>
> Also, by moving away from category/subcategory combinations

> used for author awards, we would have fewer categories to compete

> However, there are only three subcategories within any given author
> awards category anyway: general, drabble, and poetry, which already
> tends in the direction of recognizing *form*, but does not go all

> way and recognize that novels are a unique form or that vignettes

> a unique form, each requiring different skills to pull off. Those
> kinds of stories compete together under "general." So this would
> rectify that situation in a way by recognizing different skill

>
> Against the fear that this would be too cutthroat, it's much more
> competitive (and I think a fairer competition in some cases, where
> maybe only two poets make up an entire category/subcategory combo
> elligible for author awards, whereas a different c/s combo might pit
> twenty poets against each other) than being allowed only a single
> author review for any given author.
>
> So I think (I hope) this would meet all four of what I see as the
> major problems we currently have with author reviews and awards. I'm
> fairly certain that we could come up with a few more categories that
> wouldn't repeat the story award categories if desired (maybe an

> for characterization, for example, or splitting non-fiction into

> and research article since those do require totally different

> But the basic idea hopefully would be a way out of our current
> difficulties.
>
>
>
> Taking the above sketch as a possibility for reorganizing author
> reviews, and combining it with my request for a simpler user

> when it comes to writing those author reviews, I could see a page
> somewhat like this (and I hope yahoo doesn't destroy the formatting)
> to try and streamline things, make them clearer, and hopefully
> encourage more author reviewing because it would be less confusing:
>
>
> Author Name: Dwym the Evil Twyn
>
> Story Title Story Type Have I

>
> <link>Gimli's Gift</link> Short Story

>
> <link>Oops, I Sued It Again!</link> Short Story No
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Enter Author Review for Short Story: [text box]
>
>
> <link>Fear and Loathing Novel

> in the White City</link>
>
> ______________________________________
>
> Enter Author Review for Novel:[text box]
>
>
> <link>Grey</link> Drabble No
>
> <link>Purposive</link> Drabble No
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Enter Author Review for Drabble: [text box]
>
>
>
>
>
> Etc., etc., and alphabetically by review category (as I failed to

>
> This I am taking as a possible modification of the author's main

> on the website. It would give us every story the author has written,
> links to the story (so we can read it if we want to before writing

> author review), the category it is listed under *for the purposes of
> author reviews*, and a notice whether I've reviewed the story (and

> I have, a quick way to see what I'd said and so refresh my
> memory--best if opens in a new screen). It automatically breaks up

> stories into the appropriate groups and offers us an immediate
> opportunity to write an author review. It'd be easy to see in what
> categories we had already reviewed the author since they'd be right
> there. No fuss, no bother, no reloads.
>
> If we did revamp author pages this way, there'd have to be a more
> obvious pointer towards them so that people would actually go there

> review the author as an author, of course, but that's another issue
> that can be handled if something like this page revision were to go
> through. I'm mainly using it as an illustration of how to simplify

> process of reviewing authors and to show how the category change I'd
> proposed could be easily fitted into that revision.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Dwim
>

--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:26:31 -0500
> > From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@v...>
> > Subject: Re: Re: points and various voting matters
> >
> > On 1/2/06, sulriel <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Topic we possibly have forgotten:
> >>>
> >>> How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from
sources
> >> that
> >>> are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
> >>> Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published
author? Did
> >>> we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.
> >>
> >>
> >> oh -yikes, yes... that's a biggie.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes. I'd say anything and everything from within the story under
> > review should be inside <blockquotes> tags, but for stuff from
JRRT or
> > other
> > sources... hmm. That's tougher. Might be a judgment call for
the
> > admins.
> > Is the quote filler, or pertinent to the review? I'd think it
would
> > be a
> > situation which wouldn't often arise, but I don't know. Did it
happen
> > this
> > year?
> >
>
> I don't want to make this an admin judgement call because if we do
> this, then it leaves the admins open to criticism. Whether a quote
> counts or not affects how many points a story gets which controls
who
> wins -- and I don't want someone second-guessing the results.
That's
> why for this I want a rule we can apply objectively and can point
to as
> a reason for why we make a certain decision.
>
> Marta
>

>> Seems like the simplest rule--and I think this has already been
> suggested--is to just say that ALL quotes, not matter what the
> source, have to be inside blockquote tags.
>
> Kathy (Inkling)

>
> -
>
> If I understand what Dwim is saying here, I would support this.
>
> What I think is being proposed it so have the author categories
> different than the story categories.
>
> - essentially by form only? Novel, short story, poetry, drabble...
>
> in that case, it should be easy enough to write distinctly different
> reviews regarding the author's strength in that specific form, such
> as well-woven sub-plots in novels or snappy paced short story with a
> complete plot arch, intensity and emotion in a drabble. (?)

>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> >> > If I understand what Dwim is saying here, I would support

> > What I think is being proposed it so have the author categories
> > different than the story categories.
> >
> > - essentially by form only? Novel, short story, poetry,

> >
> > in that case, it should be easy enough to write distinctly

>


> Yes, that's essentially it. Undoubtedly, some of these things would

> mentioned in story reviews, but in author reviews, the focus would

> > Dwim

>
> Ok, so with author reviews, we've got the problem of the Freds of

> world versus the Freditas, and the sense that author awards are
> artificially fragmenting an author's work, encouraging meaningless
> repetition of reviews which then results in bizarre rankings, where
> someone wins an author award for "The Hobbit" drabbles on the basis

> work s/he did as a novelist in the Horror category and some humor
> pieces. Also, it's not always clear how to distinguish the author
> review from the story review, leading to questions about why we

> allow copying author reviews and not copying of story reviews.
>
> We need a compromise that gives us sensible author review

>
> 1) do not seem artificially to fragment an author's work, resulting

> weird copy-pastes that result in even weirder rankings;
>
> 2) are distinct enough from story reviews that we don't just repeat

> extend story reviews;
>
> 3) are not so all-inclusive as to make competition absolutely

>
> 4) are organized in a manner that is less confusing all around,
> thereby encouraging more people to actually review authors.
>
> What if we changed things up somewhat for author awards and looked

> *forms* of writing? Poetry, non-fiction, ficlet, short story,

> novel, drabble, drabble cycle: these are all things that authors

> have to select when filling out their story forms. So it's not like
> we'd be making any executive decisions about how to classify an
> author's work--the author has done it for us. That would be a big
> benefit, requiring no extra work or forms for anyone.
>
> The other benefit would be that we consolidate groups of authors
> across the story-awards genres and subgenres into logical categories
> that are specific enough that we have some idea of how to compare

> authors. The form of their writing holds them together across the
> divisions we'd imposed to judge stories against each other, so it
> wouldn't work to just copy a review about an author's skill as a
> writer of novels into the poet category, for example. It makes sense
> to write a different review.
>
> At the same time, using form instead of content as the basis of
> categorizing the author awards gives us enough abstraction that we
> don't need to deal with author awards in subcategories, which would
> cut down on a sense of pernicious repetition. It's also just

> an already existing trend (see below).
>
> Now, it is true, there's a reason we split the stories into

> categories and subcategories--but we've got the story awards to deal
> with recognizing merits of specific content. Author awards are (I
> think) about assessing individual style and a more general sense of
> substance within certain, more abstract bounds than "Silmarillion:
> drabble cycle", for example. So we're not doing an injustice by
> comparing incomparables here.
>
> Would it be more competitive than the current scenario? Yes, it

> be. There would be more people competing for author awards under any
> form-based category than in any individual story category since
> *every* drabbler and *every* novelist would be elligible for an

> award for writing drabbles or novels, irrespective of whether they
> wrote the novel about Silm characters of Ring-war characters,

> they wrote the drabbles about hobbits or dragons.
>
> Also, by moving away from category/subcategory combinations

> used for author awards, we would have fewer categories to compete

> However, there are only three subcategories within any given author
> awards category anyway: general, drabble, and poetry, which already
> tends in the direction of recognizing *form*, but does not go all

> way and recognize that novels are a unique form or that vignettes

> a unique form, each requiring different skills to pull off. Those
> kinds of stories compete together under "general." So this would
> rectify that situation in a way by recognizing different skill

>
> Against the fear that this would be too cutthroat, it's much more
> competitive (and I think a fairer competition in some cases, where
> maybe only two poets make up an entire category/subcategory combo
> elligible for author awards, whereas a different c/s combo might pit
> twenty poets against each other) than being allowed only a single
> author review for any given author.
>
> So I think (I hope) this would meet all four of what I see as the
> major problems we currently have with author reviews and awards. I'm
> fairly certain that we could come up with a few more categories that
> wouldn't repeat the story award categories if desired (maybe an

> for characterization, for example, or splitting non-fiction into

> and research article since those do require totally different

> But the basic idea hopefully would be a way out of our current
> difficulties.
>
>
>
> Taking the above sketch as a possibility for reorganizing author
> reviews, and combining it with my request for a simpler user

> when it comes to writing those author reviews, I could see a page
> somewhat like this (and I hope yahoo doesn't destroy the formatting)
> to try and streamline things, make them clearer, and hopefully
> encourage more author reviewing because it would be less confusing:
>
>
> Author Name: Dwym the Evil Twyn
>
> Story Title Story Type Have I

>
> <link>Gimli's Gift</link> Short Story

>
> <link>Oops, I Sued It Again!</link> Short Story No
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Enter Author Review for Short Story: [text box]
>
>
> <link>Fear and Loathing Novel

> in the White City</link>
>
> ______________________________________
>
> Enter Author Review for Novel:[text box]
>
>
> <link>Grey</link> Drabble No
>
> <link>Purposive</link> Drabble No
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Enter Author Review for Drabble: [text box]
>
>
>
>
>
> Etc., etc., and alphabetically by review category (as I failed to

>
> This I am taking as a possible modification of the author's main

> on the website. It would give us every story the author has written,
> links to the story (so we can read it if we want to before writing

> author review), the category it is listed under *for the purposes of
> author reviews*, and a notice whether I've reviewed the story (and

> I have, a quick way to see what I'd said and so refresh my
> memory--best if opens in a new screen). It automatically breaks up

> stories into the appropriate groups and offers us an immediate
> opportunity to write an author review. It'd be easy to see in what
> categories we had already reviewed the author since they'd be right
> there. No fuss, no bother, no reloads.
>
> If we did revamp author pages this way, there'd have to be a more
> obvious pointer towards them so that people would actually go there

> review the author as an author, of course, but that's another issue
> that can be handled if something like this page revision were to go
> through. I'm mainly using it as an illustration of how to simplify

> process of reviewing authors and to show how the category change I'd
> proposed could be easily fitted into that revision.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> Dwim
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:46 PM
Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: Author Review Blues


>I was disappointed to see no mention here of Dwym the Evil Twin's
> story, "The Great Adventure of Bingo Baggins and Trotter." ;)
>
> I like your idea, Dwim, though I think we would definitely want to
> look at adding some categories to supplement story forms, as you
> suggested...in addition to characterization, perhaps descriptive
> writing, dialogue, suspense, etc. It might even be fun to have
> author awards for things like "best opening line"...one of
> the most important elements of a story, IMO. It's usually what
> entices me to read a story--or not.

Oh my! I *really* like this: speaking to an author's strengths *as an
author*, and not simply within the confines of a single story. Forms would
be one way, but adding such things as characterization, dialogue,
descriptive writing, plotting, and so forth would add a whole new element to
voting for the author awards--it would increase the number of categories of
author awards from just drabble, poem, short story, vignette, novel and so
open it up to be more author awards that could be given (One of
Anaechoiriel's concerns being that only a few author awards would be
counter-productive.) and yet have them different enough from story awards to
make them far more interesting. And I would think an analysis of one's
strengths as a writer would be not only flattering, but also provide an
author with some valuable insight that doesn't always come in a story
review. ("Why, goodness, I had no idea people thought I was good at
dialogue!" or "Gee, after all my hard work, it's nice to know that readers
appreciate my plotting!" or "If they think I am that good at drabbles,
perhaps I should write more of them.")

Yes, I do indeed like *this* idea very much!

Dreamflower
(Barbara)


>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, so with author reviews, we've got the problem of the Freds of
> the
>> world versus the Freditas, and the sense that author awards are
>> artificially fragmenting an author's work, encouraging meaningless
>> repetition of reviews which then results in bizarre rankings, where
>> someone wins an author award for "The Hobbit" drabbles on the basis
> of
>> work s/he did as a novelist in the Horror category and some humor
>> pieces. Also, it's not always clear how to distinguish the author
>> review from the story review, leading to questions about why we
> should
>> allow copying author reviews and not copying of story reviews.
>>
>> We need a compromise that gives us sensible author review
> categories that
>>
>> 1) do not seem artificially to fragment an author's work, resulting
> in
>> weird copy-pastes that result in even weirder rankings;
>>
>> 2) are distinct enough from story reviews that we don't just repeat
> or
>> extend story reviews;
>>
>> 3) are not so all-inclusive as to make competition absolutely
> cutthroat;
>>
>> 4) are organized in a manner that is less confusing all around,
>> thereby encouraging more people to actually review authors.
>>
>> What if we changed things up somewhat for author awards and looked
> at
>> *forms* of writing? Poetry, non-fiction, ficlet, short story,
> novella,
>> novel, drabble, drabble cycle: these are all things that authors
> would
>> have to select when filling out their story forms. So it's not like
>> we'd be making any executive decisions about how to classify an
>> author's work--the author has done it for us. That would be a big
>> benefit, requiring no extra work or forms for anyone.
>>
>> The other benefit would be that we consolidate groups of authors
>> across the story-awards genres and subgenres into logical categories
>> that are specific enough that we have some idea of how to compare
> the
>> authors. The form of their writing holds them together across the
>> divisions we'd imposed to judge stories against each other, so it
>> wouldn't work to just copy a review about an author's skill as a
>> writer of novels into the poet category, for example. It makes sense
>> to write a different review.
>>
>> At the same time, using form instead of content as the basis of
>> categorizing the author awards gives us enough abstraction that we
>> don't need to deal with author awards in subcategories, which would
>> cut down on a sense of pernicious repetition. It's also just
> extending
>> an already existing trend (see below).
>>
>> Now, it is true, there's a reason we split the stories into
> different
>> categories and subcategories--but we've got the story awards to deal
>> with recognizing merits of specific content. Author awards are (I
>> think) about assessing individual style and a more general sense of
>> substance within certain, more abstract bounds than "Silmarillion:
>> drabble cycle", for example. So we're not doing an injustice by
>> comparing incomparables here.
>>
>> Would it be more competitive than the current scenario? Yes, it
> would
>> be. There would be more people competing for author awards under any
>> form-based category than in any individual story category since
>> *every* drabbler and *every* novelist would be elligible for an
> author
>> award for writing drabbles or novels, irrespective of whether they
>> wrote the novel about Silm characters of Ring-war characters,
> whether
>> they wrote the drabbles about hobbits or dragons.
>>
>> Also, by moving away from category/subcategory combinations
> currently
>> used for author awards, we would have fewer categories to compete
> in.
>> However, there are only three subcategories within any given author
>> awards category anyway: general, drabble, and poetry, which already
>> tends in the direction of recognizing *form*, but does not go all
> the
>> way and recognize that novels are a unique form or that vignettes
> are
>> a unique form, each requiring different skills to pull off. Those
>> kinds of stories compete together under "general." So this would
>> rectify that situation in a way by recognizing different skill
> sets.
>>
>> Against the fear that this would be too cutthroat, it's much more
>> competitive (and I think a fairer competition in some cases, where
>> maybe only two poets make up an entire category/subcategory combo
>> elligible for author awards, whereas a different c/s combo might pit
>> twenty poets against each other) than being allowed only a single
>> author review for any given author.
>>
>> So I think (I hope) this would meet all four of what I see as the
>> major problems we currently have with author reviews and awards. I'm
>> fairly certain that we could come up with a few more categories that
>> wouldn't repeat the story award categories if desired (maybe an
> award
>> for characterization, for example, or splitting non-fiction into
> essay
>> and research article since those do require totally different
> skills).
>> But the basic idea hopefully would be a way out of our current
>> difficulties.
>>
>>
>>
>> Taking the above sketch as a possibility for reorganizing author
>> reviews, and combining it with my request for a simpler user
> interface
>> when it comes to writing those author reviews, I could see a page
>> somewhat like this (and I hope yahoo doesn't destroy the formatting)
>> to try and streamline things, make them clearer, and hopefully
>> encourage more author reviewing because it would be less confusing:
>>
>>
>> Author Name: Dwym the Evil Twyn
>>
>> Story Title Story Type Have I
> Reviewed?
>>
>> <link>Gimli's Gift</link> Short Story
> <link>Yes</link>
>>
>> <link>Oops, I Sued It Again!</link> Short Story No
>>
>> _____________________________________
>>
>> Enter Author Review for Short Story: [text box]
>>
>>
>> <link>Fear and Loathing Novel
> <link>Yes</link>
>> in the White City</link>
>>
>> ______________________________________
>>
>> Enter Author Review for Novel:[text box]
>>
>>
>> <link>Grey</link> Drabble No
>>
>> <link>Purposive</link> Drabble No
>>
>> _____________________________________
>>
>> Enter Author Review for Drabble: [text box]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Etc., etc., and alphabetically by review category (as I failed to
> do).
>>
>> This I am taking as a possible modification of the author's main
> page
>> on the website. It would give us every story the author has written,
>> links to the story (so we can read it if we want to before writing
> the
>> author review), the category it is listed under *for the purposes of
>> author reviews*, and a notice whether I've reviewed the story (and
> if
>> I have, a quick way to see what I'd said and so refresh my
>> memory--best if opens in a new screen). It automatically breaks up
> the
>> stories into the appropriate groups and offers us an immediate
>> opportunity to write an author review. It'd be easy to see in what
>> categories we had already reviewed the author since they'd be right
>> there. No fuss, no bother, no reloads.
>>
>> If we did revamp author pages this way, there'd have to be a more
>> obvious pointer towards them so that people would actually go there
> to
>> review the author as an author, of course, but that's another issue
>> that can be handled if something like this page revision were to go
>> through. I'm mainly using it as an illustration of how to simplify
> the
>> process of reviewing authors and to show how the category change I'd
>> proposed could be easily fitted into that revision.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>>
>> Dwim
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>> > ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...>> > I like your idea, Dwim, though

> > look at adding some categories to supplement story forms, as you
> > suggested...in addition to characterization, perhaps descriptive
> > writing, dialogue, suspense, etc. It might even be fun to have
> > author awards for things like "best opening line"...one of
> > the most important elements of a story, IMO. It's usually what
> > entices me to read a story--or not.
>
> Oh my! I *really like this: speaking to an author's strengths *as

> Yes, I do indeed like *this* idea very much!
> > Dreamflower
> (Barbara)

>
> >
> > Kathy (Inkling)
> >
> > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik"

> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, so with author reviews, we've got the problem of the Freds of
> > the
> >> world versus the Freditas, and the sense that author awards are
> >> artificially fragmenting an author's work, encouraging

> >> repetition of reviews which then results in bizarre rankings,

> >> someone wins an author award for "The Hobbit" drabbles on the

> > of
> >> work s/he did as a novelist in the Horror category and some humor
> >> pieces. Also, it's not always clear how to distinguish the author
> >> review from the story review, leading to questions about why we
> > should
> >> allow copying author reviews and not copying of story reviews.
> >>
> >> We need a compromise that gives us sensible author review
> > categories that
> >>
> >> 1) do not seem artificially to fragment an author's work,

> > in
> >> weird copy-pastes that result in even weirder rankings;
> >>
> >> 2) are distinct enough from story reviews that we don't just

> > or
> >> extend story reviews;
> >>
> >> 3) are not so all-inclusive as to make competition absolutely
> > cutthroat;
> >>
> >> 4) are organized in a manner that is less confusing all around,
> >> thereby encouraging more people to actually review authors.
> >>
> >> What if we changed things up somewhat for author awards and

> > at
> >> *forms* of writing? Poetry, non-fiction, ficlet, short story,
> > novella,
> >> novel, drabble, drabble cycle: these are all things that authors
> > would
> >> have to select when filling out their story forms. So it's not

> >> we'd be making any executive decisions about how to classify an
> >> author's work--the author has done it for us. That would be a big
> >> benefit, requiring no extra work or forms for anyone.
> >>
> >> The other benefit would be that we consolidate groups of authors
> >> across the story-awards genres and subgenres into logical

> >> that are specific enough that we have some idea of how to compare
> > the
> >> authors. The form of their writing holds them together across the
> >> divisions we'd imposed to judge stories against each other, so it
> >> wouldn't work to just copy a review about an author's skill as a
> >> writer of novels into the poet category, for example. It makes

> >> to write a different review.
> >>
> >> At the same time, using form instead of content as the basis of
> >> categorizing the author awards gives us enough abstraction that

> >> don't need to deal with author awards in subcategories, which

> >> cut down on a sense of pernicious repetition. It's also just
> > extending
> >> an already existing trend (see below).
> >>
> >> Now, it is true, there's a reason we split the stories into
> > different
> >> categories and subcategories--but we've got the story awards to

> >> with recognizing merits of specific content. Author awards are (I
> >> think) about assessing individual style and a more general sense

> >> substance within certain, more abstract bounds

> >> drabble cycle", for example. So we're not doing an injustice by
> >> comparing incomparables here.
> >>
> >> Would it be more competitive than the current scenario? Yes, it
> > would
> >> be. There would be more people competing for author awards under

> >> form-based category than in any individual story category since
> >> *every* drabbler and *every* novelist would be elligible for an
> > author
> >> award for writing drabbles or novels, irrespective of whether

> >> wrote the novel about Silm characters of Ring-war characters,
> > whether
> >> they wrote the drabbles about hobbits or dragons.
> >>
> >> Also, by moving away from category/subcategory combinations
> > currently
> >> used for author awards, we would have fewer categories to compete
> > in.
> >> However, there are only three subcategories within any given

> >> awards category anyway: general, drabble, and poetry, which

> >> tends in the direction of recognizing *form*, but does not go all
> > the
> >> way and recognize that novels are a unique form or that vignettes
> > are
> >> a unique form, each requiring different skills to pull off. Those
> >> kinds of stories compete together under "general." So this would
> >> rectify that situation in a way by recognizing different skill
> > sets.
> >>
> >> Against the fear that this would be too cutthroat, it's much more
> >> competitive (and I think a fairer competition in some cases,

> >> maybe only two poets make up an entire category/subcategory combo
> >> elligible for author awards, whereas a different c/s combo might

> >> twenty poets against each other) than being allowed only a single
> >> author review for any given author.
> >>
> >> So I think (I hope) this would meet all four of what I see as the
> >> major problems we currently have with author reviews and awards.

> >> fairly certain that we could come up with a few more categories

> >> wouldn't repeat the story award categories if desired (maybe an
> > award
> >> for characterization, for example, or splitting non-fiction into
> > essay
> >> and research article since those do require totally different
> > skills).
> >> But the basic idea hopefully would be a way out of our current
> >> difficulties.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Taking the above sketch as a possibility for reorganizing author
> >> reviews, and combining it with my request for a simpler user
> > interface
> >> when it comes to writing those author reviews, I could see a page
> >> somewhat like this (and I hope yahoo doesn't destroy the

> >> to try and streamline things, make them clearer, and hopefully
> >> encourage more author reviewing because it would be less

> >>
> >>
> >> Author Name: Dwym the Evil Twyn
> >>
> >> Story Title Story Type Have I
> > Reviewed?
> >>
> >> <link>Gimli's Gift</link> Short Story
> > <link>Yes</link>
> >>
> >> <link>Oops, I Sued It Again!</link> Short Story No
> >>
> >> _____________________________________
> >>
> >> Enter Author Review for Short Story: [text box]
> >>
> >>
> >> <link>Fear and Loathing Novel
> > <link>Yes</link>
> >> in the White City</link>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________
> >>
> >> Enter Author Review for Novel:[text box]
> >>
> >>
> >> <link>Grey</link> Drabble No
> >>
> >> <link>Purposive</link> Drabble No
> >>
> >> _____________________________________
> >>
> >> Enter Author Review for Drabble: [text box]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Etc., etc., and alphabetically by review category (as I failed to
> > do).
> >>
> >> This I am taking as a possible modification of the author's main
> > page
> >> on the website. It would give us every story the author has

> >> links to the story (so we can read it if we want to before

> > the
> >> author review), the category it is listed under *for the

> >> author reviews*, and a notice whether I've reviewed the story

> > if
> >> I have, a quick way to see what I'd said and so refresh my
> >> memory--best if opens in a new screen). It automatically breaks

> > the
> >> stories into the appropriate groups and offers us an immediate
> >> opportunity to write an author review. It'd be easy to see in

> >> categories we had already reviewed the author since they'd be

> >> there. No fuss, no bother, no reloads.
> >>
> >> If we did revamp author pages this way, there'd have to be a more
> >> obvious pointer towards them so that people would actually go

> > to
> >> review the author as an author, of course, but that's another

> >> that can be handled if something like this page revision were to

> >> through. I'm mainly using it as an illustration of how to

> > the
> >> process of reviewing authors and to show how the category change

> >> proposed could be easily fitted into that revision.
> >>
> >> What do you all think?
> >>
> >> Dwim
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> -- Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >> What I *am* suggesting is that a person be able to enter a review
> >> for an author and have it automatically generate reviews with the
> >> same text in all other categories in which that author is
> >> entered.
> >> To give an example... let's say someone has the following
> >> nominations:
> >>
> >> - "The Trouble With Brandybucks" in "Hobbits : Fourth Age"
> >> - "Envinyatar" in "Drama : Drabble"
> >> - "A Dwarf Among Elves" in "LOTR : Lothlorien".
> >>
> >> This author is then entered in the following author categories.
> >>
> >> - Hobbits : General Authors
> >> - LOTR : General Authors
> >> - Drama : Drabble Authors
> >>
> >> Let's say I'm looking at the nominations for "Drama : Drabble". I
> >> see a listing for "Envinyatar", and by that drabble I see a link
> >> to
> >> vote on the story, and a second like to vote for the author. I
> >> click on the second link, and it takes me to a page where I can
> >> enter that vote. What I'm proposing is that we have a check-box
> >> that I could click, and whatever I enter for "Drama : Drabble
> >> Authors" is also entered as a vote for "Hobbits : General
> >> Authors" and "LOTR : General Authors".
>
> Okay, that clears things up. Thanks.
>

> Just my two cents for whatever the current economy deems that to be
> worth.

> I was disappointed to see no mention here of Dwym the Evil Twin's
> story, "The Great Adventure of Bingo Baggins and Trotter." ;)

> I like your idea, Dwim, though I think we would definitely want to
> look at adding some categories to supplement story forms, as you
> suggested...in addition to characterization, perhaps descriptive
> writing, dialogue, suspense, etc. It might even be fun to have
> author awards for things like "best opening line"...one of
> the most important elements of a story, IMO. It's usually what
> entices me to read a story--or not.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rabidsamfan
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters
>
> Me too. I think of drabbles as being much more closely
> related to poetry than general fiction, actually but that's
> another question.
>
> I'd far rather see a story review duplicated into an author
> review than multiple, identical author reviews. Since the
> two votes are going in different directions, why not?
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dwimmer_laik
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:23 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Author Review Blues

>
> What if we changed things up somewhat for author awards and looked at
> *forms* of writing? Poetry, non-fiction, ficlet, short story,
> novella, novel, drabble, drabble cycle: these are all things
> that authors would have to select when filling out their
> story forms. So it's not like we'd be making any executive
> decisions about how to classify an author's work--the author
> has done it for us. That would be a big benefit, requiring no
> extra work or forms for anyone.
>
> The other benefit would be that we consolidate groups of
> authors across the story-awards genres and subgenres into
> logical categories that are specific enough that we have some
> idea of how to compare the authors. The form of their writing
> holds them together across the divisions we'd imposed to
> judge stories against each other, so it wouldn't work to just
> copy a review about an author's skill as a writer of novels
> into the poet category, for example. It makes sense to write
> a different review.
>
> At the same time, using form instead of content as the basis
> of categorizing the author awards gives us enough abstraction
> that we don't need to deal with author awards in
> subcategories, which would cut down on a sense of pernicious
> repetition. It's also just extending an already existing
> trend (see below).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marta Layton
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:32 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: Re: points and various voting matters
>
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:26:31 -0500
> > From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> > Subject: Re: Re: points and various voting matters
> >
> > On 1/2/06, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Topic we possibly have forgotten:
> >>>
> >>> How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from sources
> >> that
> >>> are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
> >>> Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published
> author? Did
> >>> we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.
> >>
> >>
> >> oh -yikes, yes... that's a biggie.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes. I'd say anything and everything from within the story under
> > review should be inside <blockquotes> tags, but for stuff
> from JRRT or
> > other sources... hmm. That's tougher. Might be a judgment
> call for
> > the admins.
> > Is the quote filler, or pertinent to the review? I'd think
> it would
> > be a situation which wouldn't often arise, but I don't
> know. Did it
> > happen this year?
> >
>
> I don't want to make this an admin judgement call because if
> we do this, then it leaves the admins open to criticism.
> Whether a quote counts or not affects how many points a story
> gets which controls who wins -- and I don't want someone
> second-guessing the results. That's why for this I want a
> rule we can apply objectively and can point to as a reason
> for why we make a certain decision.
>
> Marta
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sulriel
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:21 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: Quotes
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...> wrote:
> >> Seems like the simplest rule--and I think this has already been
> > suggested--is to just say that ALL quotes, not matter what
> the source,
> > have to be inside blockquote tags.
> >
> > Kathy (Inkling)
>
>
> As the person who personally managed the quote/blockquote
> situation last year, I *highly* recommend that any and all
> quotes from any source must be blockquoted.
>
> It's a simple rule, easy to remember and allows for as much
> quotage as
> anyone wants to use.
>
>
> Sulriel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sulriel
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:01 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: Author Review Blues
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, <aelfwina@c...> wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...>> > I like your idea, Dwim, though
> I think we would definitely want to
> > > look at adding some categories to supplement story forms, as you
> > > suggested...in addition to characterization, perhaps descriptive
> > > writing, dialogue, suspense, etc. It might even be fun to have
> > > author awards for things like "best opening line"...one
> of the most
> > > important elements of a story, IMO. It's usually what
> entices me to
> > > read a story--or not.
> >
> > Oh my! I *really like this: speaking to an author's strengths *as
> an > author*, and not simply within the confines of a single story.
> Forms would > be one way, but adding such things as
> characterization, dialogue, > descriptive writing, plotting,
> and so forth would add a whole new element to > voting for
> the author awards--it would increase the number of categories
> of > author awards from just drabble, poem, short story,
> vignette, novel and so > open it up to be more author awards
> that could be given <<snipped>>
> > Yes, I do indeed like *this* idea very much!
> > > Dreamflower
> > (Barbara)
>
>
> I third this - wonderful idea!
>
> Sulriel
> >
> > >
> > > Kathy (Inkling)
> > >
> > > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik"
> <dwimmer_laik@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ok, so with author reviews, we've got the problem of the Freds of
> > > the
> > >> world versus the Freditas, and the sense that author awards are
> > >> artificially fragmenting an author's work, encouraging
> meaningless
> > >> repetition of reviews which then results in bizarre rankings,
> where
> > >> someone wins an author award for "The Hobbit" drabbles on the
> basis
> > > of
> > >> work s/he did as a novelist in the Horror category and
> some humor
> > >> pieces. Also, it's not always clear how to distinguish
> the author
> > >> review from the story review, leading to questions about why we
> > > should
> > >> allow copying author reviews and not copying of story reviews.
> > >>
> > >> We need a compromise that gives us sensible author review
> > > categories that
> > >>
> > >> 1) do not seem artificially to fragment an author's work,
> resulting
> > > in
> > >> weird copy-pastes that result in even weirder rankings;
> > >>
> > >> 2) are distinct enough from story reviews that we don't just
> repeat
> > > or
> > >> extend story reviews;
> > >>
> > >> 3) are not so all-inclusive as to make competition absolutely
> > > cutthroat;
> > >>
> > >> 4) are organized in a manner that is less confusing all around,
> > >> thereby encouraging more people to actually review authors.
> > >>
> > >> What if we changed things up somewhat for author awards and
> looked
> > > at
> > >> *forms* of writing? Poetry, non-fiction, ficlet, short story,
> > > novella,
> > >> novel, drabble, drabble cycle: these are all things that authors
> > > would
> > >> have to select when filling out their story forms. So it's not
> like
> > >> we'd be making any executive decisions about how to classify an
> > >> author's work--the author has done it for us. That would
> be a big
> > >> benefit, requiring no extra work or forms for anyone.
> > >>
> > >> The other benefit would be that we consolidate groups of authors
> > >> across the story-awards genres and subgenres into logical
> categories
> > >> that are specific enough that we have some idea of how to compare
> > > the
> > >> authors. The form of their writing holds them together
> across the
> > >> divisions we'd imposed to judge stories against each
> other, so it
> > >> wouldn't work to just copy a review about an author's skill as a
> > >> writer of novels into the poet category, for example. It makes
> sense
> > >> to write a different review.
> > >>
> > >> At the same time, using form instead of content as the basis of
> > >> categorizing the author awards gives us enough abstraction that
> we
> > >> don't need to deal with author awards in subcategories, which
> would
> > >> cut down on a sense of pernicious repetition. It's also just
> > > extending
> > >> an already existing trend (see below).
> > >>
> > >> Now, it is true, there's a reason we split the stories into
> > > different
> > >> categories and subcategories--but we've got the story awards to
> deal
> > >> with recognizing merits of specific content. Author awards are (I
> > >> think) about assessing individual style and a more general sense
> of
> > >> substance within certain, more abstract bounds
> than "Silmarillion:
> > >> drabble cycle", for example. So we're not doing an injustice by
> > >> comparing incomparables here.
> > >>
> > >> Would it be more competitive than the current scenario? Yes, it
> > > would
> > >> be. There would be more people competing for author awards under
> any
> > >> form-based category than in any individual story category since
> > >> *every* drabbler and *every* novelist would be elligible for an
> > > author
> > >> award for writing drabbles or novels, irrespective of whether
> they
> > >> wrote the novel about Silm characters of Ring-war characters,
> > > whether
> > >> they wrote the drabbles about hobbits or dragons.
> > >>
> > >> Also, by moving away from category/subcategory combinations
> > > currently
> > >> used for author awards, we would have fewer categories to compete
> > > in.
> > >> However, there are only three subcategories within any given
> author
> > >> awards category anyway: general, drabble, and poetry, which
> already
> > >> tends in the direction of recognizing *form*, but does not go all
> > > the
> > >> way and recognize that novels are a unique form or that vignettes
> > > are
> > >> a unique form, each requiring different skills to pull
> off. Those
> > >> kinds of stories compete together under "general." So this would
> > >> rectify that situation in a way by recognizing different skill
> > > sets.
> > >>
> > >> Against the fear that this would be too cutthroat, it's
> much more
> > >> competitive (and I think a fairer competition in some cases,
> where
> > >> maybe only two poets make up an entire
> category/subcategory combo
> > >> elligible for author awards, whereas a different c/s combo might
> pit
> > >> twenty poets against each other) than being allowed only
> a single
> > >> author review for any given author.
> > >>
> > >> So I think (I hope) this would meet all four of what I
> see as the
> > >> major problems we currently have with author reviews and awards.
> I'm
> > >> fairly certain that we could come up with a few more categories
> that
> > >> wouldn't repeat the story award categories if desired (maybe an
> > > award
> > >> for characterization, for example, or splitting non-fiction into
> > > essay
> > >> and research article since those do require totally different
> > > skills).
> > >> But the basic idea hopefully would be a way out of our current
> > >> difficulties.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Taking the above sketch as a possibility for reorganizing author
> > >> reviews, and combining it with my request for a simpler user
> > > interface
> > >> when it comes to writing those author reviews, I could
> see a page
> > >> somewhat like this (and I hope yahoo doesn't destroy the
> formatting)
> > >> to try and streamline things, make them clearer, and hopefully
> > >> encourage more author reviewing because it would be less
> confusing:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Author Name: Dwym the Evil Twyn
> > >>
> > >> Story Title Story Type Have I
> > > Reviewed?
> > >>
> > >> <link>Gimli's Gift</link> Short Story
> > > <link>Yes</link>
> > >>
> > >> <link>Oops, I Sued It Again!</link> Short Story No
> > >>
> > >> _____________________________________
> > >>
> > >> Enter Author Review for Short Story: [text box]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> <link>Fear and Loathing Novel
> > > <link>Yes</link>
> > >> in the White City</link>
> > >>
> > >> ______________________________________
> > >>
> > >> Enter Author Review for Novel:[text box]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> <link>Grey</link> Drabble No
> > >>
> > >> <link>Purposive</link> Drabble No
> > >>
> > >> _____________________________________
> > >>
> > >> Enter Author Review for Drabble: [text box]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Etc., etc., and alphabetically by review category (as I failed to
> > > do).
> > >>
> > >> This I am taking as a possible modification of the author's main
> > > page
> > >> on the website. It would give us every story the author has
> written,
> > >> links to the story (so we can read it if we want to before
> writing
> > > the
> > >> author review), the category it is listed under *for the
> purposes of
> > >> author reviews*, and a notice whether I've reviewed the story
> (and
> > > if
> > >> I have, a quick way to see what I'd said and so refresh my
> > >> memory--best if opens in a new screen). It automatically breaks
> up
> > > the
> > >> stories into the appropriate groups and offers us an immediate
> > >> opportunity to write an author review. It'd be easy to see in
> what
> > >> categories we had already reviewed the author since they'd be
> right
> > >> there. No fuss, no bother, no reloads.
> > >>
> > >> If we did revamp author pages this way, there'd have to
> be a more
> > >> obvious pointer towards them so that people would actually go
> there
> > > to
> > >> review the author as an author, of course, but that's another
> issue
> > >> that can be handled if something like this page revision were to
> go
> > >> through. I'm mainly using it as an illustration of how to
> simplify
> > > the
> > >> process of reviewing authors and to show how the category change
> I'd
> > >> proposed could be easily fitted into that revision.
> > >>
> > >> What do you all think?
> > >>
> > >> Dwim
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 1/5/06, Ainaechoiriel <mefaadmin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rabidsamfan
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:15 PM
> > To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters
> >
> > Me too. I think of drabbles as being much more closely
> > related to poetry than general fiction, actually but that's
> > another question.
> >
> > I'd far rather see a story review duplicated into an author
> > review than multiple, identical author reviews. Since the
> > two votes are going in different directions, why not?
> >
>
> Until I divorce myself completely from the MEFAs (which could
> happen--Never
> planned it that way but it's just kind of heading in that general
> direction,
> sad to say--not because of any dissatisfaction...just other-busy-ness),
> that
> will never happen. Saying why such a story was great is not saying why
> the
> author is great. I am an author. I am not my stories. Oswiecim was great
> for different reasons than Myth and Memory was great. Very. And they
> took
> far different skills to write. The depths to which I can take a reader
> in
> realistic and horrific manners (and historically accurately, at that) have
> nothing to do with my ability to write Tolkienesqueity. I have a review
> of
> Oswiecim that's 2 pages long. And only part of it talks about me, the
> writer. Yes, some writerly bits come into a story review, but an author
> review is just about the talent and skill of the writer. It may reference
> stories for evidence supporting what is said. The detail in Oswiecim was
> great. That's a story review. My ability to take from my head my
> memories
> of being in the camp and put them on the page to share with the reader
> being
> phenomenal (and they are, since I have no visualization capabilities
> really.
> Just a semi-photographic memory) is about me. My ability to make readers
> think I've described things I haven't is a writer review. My beautiful
> descriptions in Immortal is a story review (and that's where I got the
> idea
> that I can trick readers into thinking I describe things, but I digress.)
>
>
> You can review a meal and you can review a resaurant and you can review a
> chef. They are three different things. One can be terribble and the other
> two still be great.
>
> --Gabrielle
> God is my strength!
>
> http://gabrielle.sytes.net/trek The Edge of the Frontier
> Blog: http://www.gabriellewrites.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Writing a book report<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book+report&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Business+writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Writing+book&c=6&s=150&.sig=lR46b2yY3fjtLuEF-cPrOQ> Business
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Business+writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Writing+book&c=6&s=150&.sig=bVUL2qcPvT_BxOIqgxkxVw> Creative
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Creative+writing+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Business+writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Writing+book&c=6&s=150&.sig=3Gtsy8qVITSIVlWyRzfNDA> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Business+writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Writing+book&c=6&s=150&.sig=EYzyBlCKCUDi_DoKgXTO4w> Book
> writing software<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Business+writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Writing+book&c=6&s=150&.sig=a4SDza6lVyW6oL7NUnwP-w> Writing
> book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Writing+a+book+report&w2=Business+writing+book&w3=Creative+writing+book&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Book+writing+software&w6=Writing+book&c=6&s=150&.sig=ZhdyzZXdVQ_Bepmw4tehkw>
> ------------------------------
> 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]

On 1/5/06, Ainaechoiriel <mefaadmin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps answered before me, but here it is anyway:
>
> We had decided that quotes longer than 2 lines were to be blockquoted.
> Quoting the story was not saying why you liked it. A reader can read those
> lines and decide for themselves in the story itself. It just amounts to
> stuffing a vote. We decided on a compromise because yes, sometimes you
> want
> to say "My favorite part was when Aragorn said, "....". So we set a
> length
> at which block quotes would have to be used, and yes, they were not
> counted.
>
>
> --Ainaechoiriel
> MEFA Admin and Founder
>
> "This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said,
> "for
> it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.
>
> http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
>
> Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marta Layton
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:32 PM
> > To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: Re: points and various voting matters
> >
> > > Message: 10
> > > Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:26:31 -0500
> > > From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: points and various voting matters
> > >
> > > On 1/2/06, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Topic we possibly have forgotten:
> > >>>
> > >>> How do we treat quotes in reviews? What about quotes from sources
> > >> that
> > >>> are not from the fanfic under review, but which are either from
> > >>> Tolkien's own writing or else from a different published
> > author? Did
> > >>> we decide how to treat these already? I'm afraid I can't recall.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> oh -yikes, yes... that's a biggie.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. I'd say anything and everything from within the story under
> > > review should be inside <blockquotes> tags, but for stuff
> > from JRRT or
> > > other sources... hmm. That's tougher. Might be a judgment
> > call for
> > > the admins.
> > > Is the quote filler, or pertinent to the review? I'd think
> > it would
> > > be a situation which wouldn't often arise, but I don't
> > know. Did it
> > > happen this year?
> > >
> >
> > I don't want to make this an admin judgement call because if
> > we do this, then it leaves the admins open to criticism.
> > Whether a quote counts or not affects how many points a story
> > gets which controls who wins -- and I don't want someone
> > second-guessing the results. That's why for this I want a
> > rule we can apply objectively and can point to as a reason
> > for why we make a certain decision.
> >
> > Marta
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
>
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rabidsamfan
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 6:26 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters

>
> Assuming the author categories don't go another direction
> entirely (the most popular option under discussion right now,
> but the most complicated to
> enact) due to lack of time for coding, whatever, as I
> understand it the other three present suggestions are:
>
> B. leave things as they are
> C. be able to automatically distribute an author review to
> all (or some) of the categories where an author has entries
> via checkbox.
> D. to have the option to go from the story review entry
> process to an author review entry box which does (but doesn't
> have to) duplicate the story review to give the reviewer a
> chance to edit and change things around to make it more
> appropriate as an author review.
>
> Option B works, obviously, although it was a little clunky.

> I think option C preserves the most annoying aspect of option
> B, (getting five identical reviews even if they were in
> different categories) and adds some more difficulties, some
> of which are solvable if you have to choose which categories
> to disperse the copies to and the copies are automatically
> entered as something besides "final" so they can be edited.
>
> Option D -- and I'll be honest, it was my idea -- is
> technically possible according to Anthony, and in my mind it
> puts the process of creating an author review into greater
> prominence, which should mean more participation.

> Say I read a lovely story by Fred, and wrote a story review that went
>
> "'Babbling Balrogs' is a delightful look at the home life of
> the balrog family where they live deep under the mines of
> Moria. In a few deft lines Fred creates an idyll which is
> waiting to be shattered when a falling stone lands in the
> bowl of porridge that Mrs. Balrog is about to serve to her
> rambunctious, but cute twins. Fred has a mastery of humorous
> situations and characters that is worth a good deal of envy,
> and can write dialogue that is outrageously forsooth without
> being unintelligible."
>
> With a way to go straight to the author review -- a button
> right at the "submit review" page -- I might take that same
> paragraph and delete everything above "Fred has a mastery of
> ..." and then append a sentence or two about characterization.
>
> If I had written a story review which was mostly gushing
> about the writing, it probably could serve as an author
> review as well, but I think if the process of creating the
> author review is that close in time, most reviewers will edit
> a bit. And since the story reviews are counted in one
> contest and the author reviews are counted in a different
> contest, I don't think that it's that horrible if they're
> very similar.

On 1/5/06, Ainaechoiriel <mefaadmin@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rabidsamfan
> > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 6:26 PM
> > To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters
>
> >
> > Assuming the author categories don't go another direction
> > entirely (the most popular option under discussion right now,
> > but the most complicated to
> > enact) due to lack of time for coding, whatever, as I
> > understand it the other three present suggestions are:
> >
> > B. leave things as they are
> > C. be able to automatically distribute an author review to
> > all (or some) of the categories where an author has entries
> > via checkbox.
> > D. to have the option to go from the story review entry
> > process to an author review entry box which does (but doesn't
> > have to) duplicate the story review to give the reviewer a
> > chance to edit and change things around to make it more
> > appropriate as an author review.
> >
> > Option B works, obviously, although it was a little clunky.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I think option C preserves the most annoying aspect of option
> > B, (getting five identical reviews even if they were in
> > different categories) and adds some more difficulties, some
> > of which are solvable if you have to choose which categories
> > to disperse the copies to and the copies are automatically
> > entered as something besides "final" so they can be edited.
> >
> > Option D -- and I'll be honest, it was my idea -- is
> > technically possible according to Anthony, and in my mind it
> > puts the process of creating an author review into greater
> > prominence, which should mean more participation.
>
> But it also leaves it VERY likely someone will just leave their "story"
> review AS IS and submit it as an "author" review. If the story review
> automatically propogates into that box, it will happen. I don't mind
> being
> taken to a form for Author review immediately (and pulling up what you
> previously put there if there is an existing review). But I do mind
> copying
> story reviews as author reviews.
>
> > Say I read a lovely story by Fred, and wrote a story review that went
> >
> > "'Babbling Balrogs' is a delightful look at the home life of
> > the balrog family where they live deep under the mines of
> > Moria. In a few deft lines Fred creates an idyll which is
> > waiting to be shattered when a falling stone lands in the
> > bowl of porridge that Mrs. Balrog is about to serve to her
> > rambunctious, but cute twins. Fred has a mastery of humorous
> > situations and characters that is worth a good deal of envy,
> > and can write dialogue that is outrageously forsooth without
> > being unintelligible."
> >
> > With a way to go straight to the author review -- a button
> > right at the "submit review" page -- I might take that same
> > paragraph and delete everything above "Fred has a mastery of
> > ..." and then append a sentence or two about characterization.
> >
> > If I had written a story review which was mostly gushing
> > about the writing, it probably could serve as an author
> > review as well, but I think if the process of creating the
> > author review is that close in time, most reviewers will edit
> > a bit. And since the story reviews are counted in one
> > contest and the author reviews are counted in a different
> > contest, I don't think that it's that horrible if they're
> > very similar.
>
> 2 issues. 1 mentioned above (I think NOT editing will happen more often
> than
> you think.). 2 being that an author may have 3 stories gaining them
> eligibility in an author category. You read the first one, write your
> review and up comes that box. Let's say you DO edit it. Then you go and
> read another one. You write your review and up comes that box again and
> ...what?
>
> Did it overwrite what you previously had? Did it append your second story
> vote to it?
>
> There's no cap on the number of stories an author could have to make them
> eligible for one author category. They still only get one nomination in
> that category. That part won't change. So that makes a technical issue.
> The first issue is more an ethical one.
>
> --Ainaechoiriel
> MEFA Admin and Founder
>
> "This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said,
> "for
> it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.
>
> http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
>
> Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Writing and publishing a book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Writing+a+book+report&w6=Business+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=oCgrISWcOEfZQFsKUP-mdQ> Writing
> book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Writing+a+book+report&w6=Business+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=fcRYNfENN4HC9sFa2nVO5A> Book
> writing software<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Book+writing+software&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Writing+a+book+report&w6=Business+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=vdzlRRqJwnY8d5tjFI0d3w> Writing
> child book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+child+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Writing+a+book+report&w6=Business+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=OYgCqshRxeGeuY9rIYSxPA> Writing
> a book report<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Writing+a+book+report&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Writing+a+book+report&w6=Business+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=d1okvmLcf7_ImnRdQw5ivA> Business
> writing book<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+writing+book&w1=Writing+and+publishing+a+book&w2=Writing+book&w3=Book+writing+software&w4=Writing+child+book&w5=Writing+a+book+report&w6=Business+writing+book&c=6&s=158&.sig=P3jf6666hsqXF-o_OxHscw>
> ------------------------------
> 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]

>
> I like the idea in theory. It's the imagining of "in practice" that
> scares the daylights out of me. How would you decide which authors
> would be in those "best opening line" categories? And really that's
> a story issue, not an author one unless you're commening on all the
> opening lines an author wrote....
>
> But my point is, every author. Every author of every story wrote
> an opening line. Thus every author would be eligible in that
> category. And every other category like "characterization"
> or "plotting" (okay, except the PWP's but unless I missed that in
> the post-mortem--and I've missed a lot--those aren't likely to be
> here anyway.)
>
> Every author would elibigle for nearly every category.

> >
> > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, <aelfwina@c...> wrote:
> > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...>> > I like your idea, Dwim,

> > I think we would definitely want to
> > > > look at adding some categories to supplement story forms, as

> > > > suggested...in addition to characterization, perhaps

> > > > writing, dialogue, suspense, etc. It might even be fun to

> > > > author awards for things like "best opening line"...one
> > of the most
> > > > important elements of a story, IMO. It's usually what
> > entices me to
> > > > read a story--or not.
> > >
> > > Oh my! I *really like this: speaking to an author's strengths

> > an > author*, and not simply within the confines of a single

> > Forms would > be one way, but adding such things as
> > characterization, dialogue, > descriptive writing, plotting,
> > and so forth would add a whole new element to > voting for
> > the author awards--it would increase the number of categories
> > of > author awards from just drabble, poem, short story,
> > vignette, novel and so > open it up to be more author awards
> > that could be given <<snipped>>
> > > Yes, I do indeed like *this* idea very much!
> > > > Dreamflower
> > > (Barbara)
> >
> >
> > I third this - wonderful idea!
> >
> > Sulriel
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kathy (Inkling)
> > > >
> > > > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik"
> > <dwimmer_laik@y...>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Ok, so with author reviews, we've got the problem of the

> > > > the
> > > >> world versus the Freditas, and the sense that author awards

> > > >> artificially fragmenting an author's work, encouraging
> > meaningless
> > > >> repetition of reviews which then results in bizarre rankings,
> > where
> > > >> someone wins an author award for "The Hobbit" drabbles on the
> > basis
> > > > of
> > > >> work s/he did as a novelist in the Horror category and
> > some humor
> > > >> pieces. Also, it's not always clear how to distinguish
> > the author
> > > >> review from the story review, leading to questions about why

> > > > should
> > > >> allow copying author reviews and not copying of story

> > > >>
> > > >> We need a compromise that gives us sensible author review
> > > > categories that
> > > >>
> > > >> 1) do not seem artificially to fragment an author's work,
> > resulting
> > > > in
> > > >> weird copy-pastes that result in even weirder rankings;
> > > >>
> > > >> 2) are distinct enough from story reviews that we don't just
> > repeat
> > > > or
> > > >> extend story reviews;
> > > >>
> > > >> 3) are not so all-inclusive as to make competition absolutely
> > > > cutthroat;
> > > >>
> > > >> 4) are organized in a manner that is less confusing all

> > > >> thereby encouraging more people to actually review authors.
> > > >>
> > > >> What if we changed things up somewhat for author awards and
> > looked
> > > > at
> > > >> *forms* of writing? Poetry, non-fiction, ficlet, short story,
> > > > novella,
> > > >> novel, drabble, drabble cycle: these are all things that

> > > > would
> > > >> have to select when filling out their story forms. So it's

> > like
> > > >> we'd be making any executive decisions about how to classify

> > > >> author's work--the author has done it for us. That would
> > be a big
> > > >> benefit, requiring no extra work or forms for anyone.
> > > >>
> > > >> The other benefit would be that we consolidate groups of

> > > >> across the story-awards genres and subgenres into logical
> > categories
> > > >> that are specific enough that we have some idea of how to

> > > > the
> > > >> authors. The form of their writing holds them together
> > across the
> > > >> divisions we'd imposed to judge stories against each
> > other, so it
> > > >> wouldn't work to just copy a review about an author's skill

> > > >> writer of novels into the poet category, for example. It

> > sense
> > > >> to write a different review.
> > > >>
> > > >> At the same time, using form instead of content as the basis

> > > >> categorizing the author awards gives us enough abstraction

> > we
> > > >> don't need to deal with author awards in subcategories, which
> > would
> > > >> cut down on a sense of pernicious repetition. It's also just
> > > > extending
> > > >> an already existing trend (see below).
> > > >>
> > > >> Now, it is true, there's a reason we split the stories into
> > > > different
> > > >> categories and subcategories--but we've got the story awards

> > deal
> > > >> with recognizing merits of specific content. Author awards

> > > >> think) about assessing individual style and a more general

> > of
> > > >> substance within certain, more abstract bounds
> > than "Silmarillion:
> > > >> drabble cycle", for example. So we're not doing an injustice

> > > >> comparing incomparables here.
> > > >>
> > > >> Would it be more competitive than the current scenario? Yes,

> > > > would
> > > >> be. There would be more people competing for author awards

> > any
> > > >> form-based category than in any individual story category

> > > >> *every* drabbler and *every* novelist would be elligible for

> > > > author
> > > >> award for writing drabbles or novels, irrespective of whether
> > they
> > > >> wrote the novel about Silm characters of Ring-war characters,
> > > > whether
> > > >> they wrote the drabbles about hobbits or dragons.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, by moving away from category/subcategory combinations
> > > > currently
> > > >> used for author awards, we would have fewer categories to

> > > > in.
> > > >> However, there are only three subcategories within any given
> > author
> > > >> awards category anyway: general, drabble, and poetry, which
> > already
> > > >> tends in the direction of recognizing *form*, but does not

> > > > the
> > > >> way and recognize that novels are a unique form or that

> > > > are
> > > >> a unique form, each requiring different skills to pull
> > off. Those
> > > >> kinds of stories compete together under "general." So this

> > > >> rectify that situation in a way by recognizing different

> > > > sets.
> > > >>
> > > >> Against the fear that this would be too cutthroat, it's
> > much more
> > > >> competitive (and I think a fairer competition in some cases,
> > where
> > > >> maybe only two poets make up an entire
> > category/subcategory combo
> > > >> elligible for author awards, whereas a different c/s combo

> > pit
> > > >> twenty poets against each other) than being allowed only
> > a single
> > > >> author review for any given author.
> > > >>
> > > >> So I think (I hope) this would meet all four of what I
> > see as the
> > > >> major problems we currently have with author reviews and

> > I'm
> > > >> fairly certain that we could come up with a few more

> > that
> > > >> wouldn't repeat the story award categories if desired (maybe

> > > > award
> > > >> for characterization, for example, or splitting non-fiction

> > > > essay
> > > >> and research article since those do require totally different
> > > > skills).
> > > >> But the basic idea hopefully would be a way out of our

> > > >> difficulties.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Taking the above sketch as a possibility for reorganizing

> > > >> reviews, and combining it with my request for a simpler user
> > > > interface
> > > >> when it comes to writing those author reviews, I could
> > see a page
> > > >> somewhat like this (and I hope yahoo doesn't destroy the
> > formatting)
> > > >> to try and streamline things, make them clearer, and

> > > >> encourage more author reviewing because it would be less
> > confusing:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> Author Name: Dwym the Evil Twyn
> > > >>
> > > >> Story Title Story Type Have I
> > > > Reviewed?
> > > >>
> > > >> <link>Gimli's Gift</link> Short Story
> > > > <link>Yes</link>
> > > >>
> > > >> <link>Oops, I Sued It Again!</link> Short Story No
> > > >>
> > > >> _____________________________________
> > > >>
> > > >> Enter Author Review for Short Story: [text box]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> <link>Fear and Loathing Novel
> > > > <link>Yes</link>
> > > >> in the White City</link>
> > > >>
> > > >> ______________________________________
> > > >>
> > > >> Enter Author Review for Novel:[text box]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> <link>Grey</link> Drabble No
> > > >>
> > > >> <link>Purposive</link> Drabble No
> > > >>
> > > >> _____________________________________
> > > >>
> > > >> Enter Author Review for Drabble: [text box]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Etc., etc., and alphabetically by review category (as I

> > > > do).
> > > >>
> > > >> This I am taking as a possible modification of the author's

> > > > page
> > > >> on the website. It would give us every story the author has
> > written,
> > > >> links to the story (so we can read it if we want to before
> > writing
> > > > the
> > > >> author review), the category it is listed under *for the
> > purposes of
> > > >> author reviews*, and a notice whether I've reviewed the story
> > (and
> > > > if
> > > >> I have, a quick way to see what I'd said and so refresh my
> > > >> memory--best if opens in a new screen). It automatically

> > up
> > > > the
> > > >> stories into the appropriate groups and offers us an

> > > >> opportunity to write an author review. It'd be easy to see in
> > what
> > > >> categories we had already reviewed the author since they'd be
> > right
> > > >> there. No fuss, no bother, no reloads.
> > > >>
> > > >> If we did revamp author pages this way, there'd have to
> > be a more
> > > >> obvious pointer towards them so that people would actually go
> > there
> > > > to
> > > >> review the author as an author, of course, but that's another
> > issue
> > > >> that can be handled if something like this page revision

> > go
> > > >> through. I'm mainly using it as an illustration of how to
> > simplify
> > > > the
> > > >> process of reviewing authors and to show how the category

> > I'd
> > > >> proposed could be easily fitted into that revision.
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you all think?
> > > >>
> > > >> Dwim
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

>> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@e...>
> wrote:
> >> > I like the idea in theory. It's the imagining of "in practice"

> >
> > But my point is, every author. Every author of every story wrote
> > an opening line. Thus every author would be eligible in that
> > category. And every other category like "characterization"
> > or "plotting" (okay, except the PWP's but unless I missed that in
> > the post-mortem--and I've missed a lot--those aren't likely to be
> > here anyway.)
> >
> > Every author would elibigle for nearly every category.
>
> Yeah, I guess that's how I would do it. And I now realize that may
> not be what Sulriel was suggesting when she said "separate
> nominations" for author categories...I didn't really focus on the
> implications of that. Sure, you could do it, but I kind of favor

>
>
> - as an aside, I would be ok with either keeping the author awards
> the same for this year or scrapping them entirely and maybe bringing
> back a revamped system next year. I do think they're valid because
> even though there is a lot of parallel, - if I remember - there were
> some authors who did ok in the story awards, but earned more
> recognition in the author awards, and I think that's saying good
> things about the overall quality of the writing.
>
>
> Sulriel

>> On 1/6/06, sulriel <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> >> >> > - as an aside, I would be ok with either keeping the author

> >> >> > Sulriel
>
>
> Now I want statistics. How many story awards were there? How many

>
> Now I want statistics. How many story awards were there? How many

> awards?

> top story award, etc?

>

> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:38:48 -0000
> From: "sulriel" <Sulriel@htcomp.net>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters
>

>>>> I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award an
>>>> honorable mention to all the stories that get a certain number of
>>>> points and aren't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. For xample, we
>>>> could set the threshold at 20 points; if your story gets 20 points
>>>> but isn't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, it gets an honorable
>>>> mention.
>>>>
>>> I think this is an overall good idea and would be ok if it were
>>> implemented, but I think it would be a difficult call to set that
>>> number, especially if we change the point system.
>>>
>> You're right, this would be a problem, but I'm not sure it's any more
>> random than the current three-point rules. One solution might be to
>> wait to determine this limit until we have the actual figures from
>> next year. Anthony, would it be possible to see the number of points
>> that the top third (or half, or whatever percent of stories we want
>> to award) scored above? Say we decide we want to give honourable
>> mention to the top third of stories. I guess this would in effect be
>> recognising the top % of stories instead of within a certain point
>> range. The only problem is it wouldn't necessarily be an honourable
>> mention in a certain category, as which stories get an HM id
>> etermined by the *overall* pointspread, across all the categories.

>
> *** I don't support making point decisions after the fact.
>
> I think your previous example of smaller subcate would work against
> this proposal as well ... what if none of the stories received that
> number of points. It's easy to say that there would be no HMs in that
> subcate, but you could easily end up with 1st, 2nd, 3rd places with a
> lower point count than HMs in other categories and that seems
> inconsistent with the rest of the system.
>
>

>

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:16:13 -0500
> From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: Author Review Blues
>
> On 1/6/06, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> - as an aside, I would be ok with either keeping the author awards
>> the same for this year or scrapping them entirely and maybe bringing
>> back a revamped system next year. I do think they're valid because
>> even though there is a lot of parallel, - if I remember - there were
>> some authors who did ok in the story awards, but earned more
>> recognition in the author awards, and I think that's saying good
>> things about the overall quality of the writing.
>>
>>
>> Sulriel
>
>
> Now I want statistics. How many story awards were there? How many
> author
> awards? How often did the top author award go to someone who hadn't
> won the
> top story award, etc?

> Data is a good thing. If no one has these numbers easily, I might be
> able
> to hand count them if people ask for it, but I'm hoping that someone
> knows.
>

On 1/10/06, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> Hi RSF,
>
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:16:13 -0500
> > From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Author Review Blues
> >
> > On 1/6/06, sulriel <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> - as an aside, I would be ok with either keeping the author awards
> >> the same for this year or scrapping them entirely and maybe bringing
> >> back a revamped system next year. I do think they're valid because
> >> even though there is a lot of parallel, - if I remember - there were
> >> some authors who did ok in the story awards, but earned more
> >> recognition in the author awards, and I think that's saying good
> >> things about the overall quality of the writing.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sulriel
> >
> >
> > Now I want statistics. How many story awards were there? How many
> > author
> > awards? How often did the top author award go to someone who hadn't
> > won the
> > top story award, etc?
>
> > Data is a good thing. If no one has these numbers easily, I might be
> > able
> > to hand count them if people ask for it, but I'm hoping that someone
> > knows.
> >
>
> Hi Rabidsamfan,
>
> I don't have those numbers available easily, unfortunately. If you're
> interested in investigating it yourself you might look at
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ainae/mefa/2005swin.html
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ainae/mefa/2005awin.html
>
> My gut feeling is that there are a lot of stories that placed whose
> authors didn't get author awards simply because there's more
> competition for those spots. Maybe not so much for drabbles and poetry
> but definitely for stories -- just because there are a lot more of
> story categories all competing for the same awards. I also think it
> really depends on the category (not sub-category). Something like
> Mystery where there's only one subcategory or even Movie-verse where
> there were I think three subcategories will have about the same
> competition for the author awards, but a large category like Post-Ring
> War would be very competitive.
>
> Not stats, I know. Sorry I don't have more concrete numbers to offer.
>
> Marta
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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]

> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:46:20 -0000
> From: "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Author Review Blues
>
>
>>
>> Now I want statistics. How many story awards were there? How many
> author
>> awards?
>
> A lot. I've just moved everything to a spreadsheet.

> It's a giant spreadsheet. I'll post it when I'm done with it for the
> list's perusal.
>

> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:33:55 -0600
> From: Anthony Holder <aaholder@swbell.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: points and various voting matters (Anthony)
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:47 PM, rabidsamfan wrote:
>
>> If it wouldn't be such a pain in the arse to figure out how to do it,
>> I'd
>> say don't tell reviewers how many points they've given out when
>> they're composing or editing reviews -- just show them the list of
>> stories
>> from that subcategory ranked in order with "unreviewed" at the bottom
>> of the
>> list. That way you could adjust your reviews to get the stories in
>> the
>> preferred order if you really wanted to, and ignore the whole "number
>> of
>> points" question if you felt like it too. You'd only be comparing
>> your own
>> efforts to your own efforts as a reviewer.
>
> RSF, this'll be at the bottom of the list, but it might be possible.
> Sorting is fairly easy, as is linking the review character count to the
> story so it can be sorted.
>

> About the story review showing up in the Author review box, I was
> thinking that I could put it on the page, but not in the box. I might
> be able to show all your reviews in that category, as well.

> If you want
> (and I have time to) to change the Author Reviews around so they aren't
> category-based, then which Author review should you be taken to?
> There'd have to be a page with links to all the possible author reviews
> for that author.

> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:42:44 -0500
> From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Author Review Blues
>
> Actually, someone did come up with numbers, which, IIRC, showed that
> sometimes authors won as authors even when stories didn't. It sounded
> like
> this years system worked fairly well, to tell the truth, as far as how
> author awards are grouped and all.
>
> I'd still like to go from the story review to the author review via a
> link
> if I could, though. *grin*
>