Yahoo Forum Archive

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


Msg# 6599

(attn: Ainae) Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters Posted by Marta Layton January 04, 2006 - 21:21:48 Topic ID# 6599
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:57:30 -0000
> From: "Kathy" <>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters
> Happy New Year, everyone! Marta, great job running the post-mortem.

Thanks. Every time I admit to half-thinking I should do a better job,
you guys correct me. ;-)

> --- In, 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.

I'm not too crazy about this, though not completely against it, either.
It just feels a little bit short to me. I easily hit 600 on longer
stories; I'd be happier with 800 or even 1000 being the cap. But I
don't have anything to base this on. I know Anthony's provided some
stats down on the digest, and I'll comment more on this later.

>> 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.

I agree - I always preferred the second method, even before I proposed
it, and after seeing the discussion I definitely think this is better.

>> 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.

Yep, this sounds like a good plan. Like I said before, I suggest that
if we do this, we also limit the size of the sub-category. I wouldn't
object at all to a limit of 4 HM's with a limit of 15 stories to the

>> 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 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)

To be honest, the author awards are more of an irritation for me than
anything. They're a lot of trouble to explain, and I'd almost prefer it
if we didn't have them at all. If we do continue to have them, I like
Dwim's suggestion of doing content-based.

But I'm not the one that needs to be convinced. This is a major change,
and I think Ainae's the one who really needs to decide whether we
should do anything. I'll email Ainae and ask her to follow the list. As
a courtesy to her, why don't we put "(attn: Ainae) in the subject line
so she can find these easily.

Oh, and this will probably be the last time I comment on author
reviews, unless I change my mind. I think I've pretty well said my
opinion on this one.