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.

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2004---18210426558925263362316285
20051895610753834744697276194358565136
200623166277611713912756676615979
200720257-297299143318583103
2008561335424014127477516090106
2009283-39194101722722153624
201067-14103138129321316330
20111-172625906132758
201230---812276-----
2013------------
2014---------1-2
2015------------
2016------------
2017------------
2018------------
2019---------1--

Msg# 6662

Re: points and various voting matters (Dwimordene) Posted by Marta Layton January 07, 2006 - 16:03:00 Topic ID# 6662
> Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:34:45 -0000
> From: "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters (Dwim)
>

Hi Dwim,

I'm going to snip a lot of the comments on specific point brackets,
because as you say:

>> A good way to avoid all of this would be to go with Rabidsamfan's
>> suggestion to do away with points and just go with character counts up
>> to a certain cap. 1000 characters or whatever. The more I think about
>> it, the more I like that idea - though I'm not so sold on it as to
>> insist on it.
>
> I'd go for this. It'd make things easier, I think, so long as there
> was a cap in place. I'm happy with 1000 being the cap--that seems
> reasonable to me and appears to have worked well as a cap the past two
> years.
>

I'm increasingly in favor of this option, or some other option like the
one Anthony proposed, with each character worth a point up to some
threshold and then worth a fraction of a point up to some higher
threshold. I think it will be easier to do that than to argue over what
type of review should constitute what points bracket. Besides I think
it's actually a lot more straightforward, so easier to understand and
easier to write toward when you're actually doing reviews.

>>> So for me, having a single author review, where I could use all the
>>> stories at once, without having to figure out how to carve them up
>>> and
>>> write two reviews without being repetitive, would be a significant
>>> improvement.
>>>
>>
>> Well, technically you can enter the same author review for every
>> category an author is entered in. But this does get repetitive when
>> trying to read through author reviews, I agree. It would be nice to
>> not
>> display duplicate reviews; I'm not sure how we'd program this.
>>
>> Short of that, the only way I can see this suggestion working would be
>> to have all the authors in a single category - and I'm not crazy about
>> that idea.
>
> I just posted on Author Awards, so you can see how I'd try to modify
> them to suit the concerns raised on the list. The Author Awards are
> undoubtedly the part of the MEFAs that works least well, since it's
> just plain confusing and results in weird mismatches between the
> category in which a person wins an Author Awards and the content of
> the actual review.
>

I know I promised I'd stay out of author's reviews, but I do think it's
important I at least give my opinion on this.

First off, I *really* like Dwim's suggestions about having author
reviews by form instead of by category. I think it's definitely the way
we want to go in the future, though I have read Anthony's post saying
that it's not going to be feasible for this year. That's fine; we're
asking for a lot of changes, and I don't want to ask for more work than
he can handle. So keeping in mind that it doesn't look like we'll be
able to have it at least this year, I have to wonder whether we want to
have authors' reviews at all next year. I really liked receiving them,
but it it does seem like there are too much confusions and too many
author categories with too few authors competing to really make sense.

One temporary solution I can think of is requiring that subcategories
be a bit larger -- for example 7 stories by 5 authors. That would
ensure that each author sub-category had at least 5 authors. But I'm
not sure if that's a good or a bad idea by other criteria.

>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I think we decided that all reviews, regardless of source or length,
>> had to be within blockquote tags. You can include them but they won't
>> count for scoring purposes. Am I misremembering this?
>
> I'm not sure. That's why I asked!

Fair enough... ;-)

> I'm happy if all quotes, regardless
> of their source, get treated the same, so long as we *can* quote
> freely, and so long as it's made clear in the rules how to handle them.
>

I don't want all quotes to be thrown out the window, either. I like
using them in my reviews. But under the rule I'm proposing, you can use
all the quotes you like, they just won't count toward the number of
points your review gets.

Marta

Msg# 6664

Re: points and various voting matters (Dwimordene) Posted by Nerwen Calaelen January 07, 2006 - 16:23:27 Topic ID# 6662
Just wanted to weigh in to restate my objections to using straight character counts.
There are basically 2, firstly that it is harder to decide how many characters eg how many points out of 1000 that a story is worth than how many points out of 10. I would certainly find this very hard as I would find it very hard to keep track of how many characters I had read for every story and where in the rating a new story would come. With the currect system, when I read a story I can easily decide the number of points I want to give it and ensure that I write the review in enough detail.
2) It would be very hard to ensure that two equally good stories got exactly the same vote from me, ie it would take much longer to write reviews as I would have to be rewriting to get the right number of characters, not merely within the right range. It could also be seen to benifit stories about characters with longer names as the same comment would then have more characters....

Basically, I think if this option is accepted, I, for one, am like;ly to participate far less next year as it would make reviewing much harder.

Jenn

Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote: > Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:34:45 -0000
> From: "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters (Dwim)
>

Hi Dwim,

I'm going to snip a lot of the comments on specific point brackets,
because as you say:

>> A good way to avoid all of this would be to go with Rabidsamfan's
>> suggestion to do away with points and just go with character counts up
>> to a certain cap. 1000 characters or whatever. The more I think about
>> it, the more I like that idea - though I'm not so sold on it as to
>> insist on it.
>
> I'd go for this. It'd make things easier, I think, so long as there
> was a cap in place. I'm happy with 1000 being the cap--that seems
> reasonable to me and appears to have worked well as a cap the past two
> years.
>

I'm increasingly in favor of this option, or some other option like the
one Anthony proposed, with each character worth a point up to some
threshold and then worth a fraction of a point up to some higher
threshold. I think it will be easier to do that than to argue over what
type of review should constitute what points bracket. Besides I think
it's actually a lot more straightforward, so easier to understand and
easier to write toward when you're actually doing reviews.

>>> So for me, having a single author review, where I could use all the
>>> stories at once, without having to figure out how to carve them up
>>> and
>>> write two reviews without being repetitive, would be a significant
>>> improvement.
>>>
>>
>> Well, technically you can enter the same author review for every
>> category an author is entered in. But this does get repetitive when
>> trying to read through author reviews, I agree. It would be nice to
>> not
>> display duplicate reviews; I'm not sure how we'd program this.
>>
>> Short of that, the only way I can see this suggestion working would be
>> to have all the authors in a single category - and I'm not crazy about
>> that idea.
>
> I just posted on Author Awards, so you can see how I'd try to modify
> them to suit the concerns raised on the list. The Author Awards are
> undoubtedly the part of the MEFAs that works least well, since it's
> just plain confusing and results in weird mismatches between the
> category in which a person wins an Author Awards and the content of
> the actual review.
>

I know I promised I'd stay out of author's reviews, but I do think it's
important I at least give my opinion on this.

First off, I *really* like Dwim's suggestions about having author
reviews by form instead of by category. I think it's definitely the way
we want to go in the future, though I have read Anthony's post saying
that it's not going to be feasible for this year. That's fine; we're
asking for a lot of changes, and I don't want to ask for more work than
he can handle. So keeping in mind that it doesn't look like we'll be
able to have it at least this year, I have to wonder whether we want to
have authors' reviews at all next year. I really liked receiving them,
but it it does seem like there are too much confusions and too many
author categories with too few authors competing to really make sense.

One temporary solution I can think of is requiring that subcategories
be a bit larger -- for example 7 stories by 5 authors. That would
ensure that each author sub-category had at least 5 authors. But I'm
not sure if that's a good or a bad idea by other criteria.

>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I think we decided that all reviews, regardless of source or length,
>> had to be within blockquote tags. You can include them but they won't
>> count for scoring purposes. Am I misremembering this?
>
> I'm not sure. That's why I asked!

Fair enough... ;-)

> I'm happy if all quotes, regardless
> of their source, get treated the same, so long as we *can* quote
> freely, and so long as it's made clear in the rules how to handle them.
>

I don't want all quotes to be thrown out the window, either. I like
using them in my reviews. But under the rule I'm proposing, you can use
all the quotes you like, they just won't count toward the number of
points your review gets.

Marta



---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "MEFAwards" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

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

Msg# 6665

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by sulriel January 07, 2006 - 16:26:40 Topic ID# 6662
I think I've figured out how to verbalize why I prefer the lower
point spread and/or the graduated point system.

because the BIGGEST deal is the fact that the reader took the time to
open the story, read it, click on the MEFA review link and say
something nice.

I like and agree with that if they liked it a lot and had a lot of
nice things to say that counted for more points.

but the difference between no review and any review is infinite. The
*1st* point is the most important one and I believe, to some extent,
we lose sight of that.


I think the five point spread, with the character count wieghted to
the lower points would help keep this in the minds of the reviewers. -
those that wanted to write more could, and a very long review could
make the difference in a points-tie.

Msg# 6668

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by Kathy January 07, 2006 - 18:12:43 Topic ID# 6662
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
>
>
> I think I've figured out how to verbalize why I prefer the lower
> point spread and/or the graduated point system.
>
> because the BIGGEST deal is the fact that the reader took the time
> to
> open the story, read it, click on the MEFA review link and say
> something nice.
>
> I like and agree with that if they liked it a lot and had a lot of
> nice things to say that counted for more points.
>
> but the difference between no review and any review is infinite.
> The
> *1st* point is the most important one and I believe, to some
> extent,
> we lose sight of that.
>
>
> I think the five point spread, with the character count wieghted to
> the lower points would help keep this in the minds of the
> reviewers. -
> those that wanted to write more could, and a very long review
> could
> make the difference in a points-tie.
>

Good point and well said, Sulriel. Whether we go with a 5-point
spread, 10-point spread, or character count, I *think* the majority
of posts I've seen on the subject seem to be OK with a system that
gives slightly more weight to the shorter reviews.

The more contentious issue seems to be which of those three options
to go with. Just for the record, I could live with any of them.
Maybe, given the variety of opinions on the subject, this is
something that should be put to a poll?

Kathy (Inkling)

Msg# 6671

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by dwimmer\_laik January 07, 2006 - 19:22:23 Topic ID# 6662
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
>
>
> I think I've figured out how to verbalize why I prefer the lower
> point spread and/or the graduated point system.
>
> because the BIGGEST deal is the fact that the reader took the time to
> open the story, read it, click on the MEFA review link and say
> something nice.
>
> I like and agree with that if they liked it a lot and had a lot of
> nice things to say that counted for more points.
>
> but the difference between no review and any review is infinite. The
> *1st* point is the most important one and I believe, to some extent,
> we lose sight of that.
>
>
> I think the five point spread, with the character count wieghted to
> the lower points would help keep this in the minds of the reviewers. -
> those that wanted to write more could, and a very long review could
> make the difference in a points-tie.
>

Is the basic reason for the reduction of the scale to a five point cap
that we are forgetting the "infinite" distance between no review and
one review? (In other words, we want to solve the problem of
non-participation.)

Or is the basic reason for that proposed reduction that we should
remember to value the fact that someone took the time to review the
story... as opposed to what? This does not clearly seem to be in
opposition to the first possibility; they seem rather to complement
each other like two sides of the very same coin. However, it does
sound like it's an opposite position to, perhaps, being upset that
someone didn't leave a ten point review. To being what some would say
is "overly competitive"--a complaint that seems to come up at regular
intervals, and in fact I think occurred this very week.

If the first is true, I don't think the reduced points cap will solve
the problem. We don't even know that the points scale is at all
related to the problem of non-participation, unless there's been a
poll of non-participants that I've missed. It seems more likely that
the problem of non-participation is due to the sheer number of stories
entered combined with exhaustion from real life that has other
priorities than a fanfic competition, plain and simple.

If it *does* have something to do with the points scale, however, then
the difference between zero and one, though infinite, is far less than
the multiply infinite difference between one and ten, so why would
reducing the points scale affect non-participation by making it happen
less often? The only way I can see it having that effect is if the
mind of the non-participator says something like this:

"Geez, that's a lot of stories. I'm overwhelmed. I want to
participate, but I'm just too tired. I feel bad. But look, even if I
tried, I could only write a one point review. And that's not worth
anything at all! So really, it doesn't matter if I don't
participate--I shouldn't feel bad about not leaving that one review,
it wouldn't have counted anyway."

The problem here is not the points cap, it's the cynicism. If someone
feels his or her vote makes no difference, then five points or ten,
s/he will always find a reason not to vote. Always.

So if number one is the motivation for the points scale change, then
I'd be very concerned that we might be dealing with an imaginary
problem, and being lazy like I am, I don't like to deal with problems
that I'm not convinced are very real. I need a lot more convincing to
be done on behalf of the points scale reduction if this is the reason
for it.


The second problem is itself problematic to me because I'm not sure
why it's a problem--thus the effort to find something for it to
oppose. I'm not sure whether it's intended to locate the problem on
the side of those *receiving* the reviews, or on the side of those
*giving* them. My version locates it on the side of the authors, not
on the side of the reviewers. But I can't be sure that's what's
intended. I'm not even sure I should be reading it as a separate
problem or if it's supposed to be there as the intuition that lies
behind the articulation of the problem as one of non-participation,
the difference between zero and one.

So I'm really not sure what to think about possibility two as a reason
for changing the points scale if I'm looking at the original e-mail,
which is the same as saying I think it's not a good reason to do so
since I'm not sure what I should understand by it, assuming it's a
separate reason at all. If I'm looking at my extrapolation from it, I
see another problem we can't solve--no one can make someone refuse to
make comparisons that will upset him or her, or make someone grateful
for what s/he actually receives.


The reason I keep saying I think a curve would work best is that it
addresses a definite, identifiable problem raised by people who *have
actually reviewed* and participated in the post-mortem discussion. I
can see why it's worth it to make it easier to score points with fewer
words, but it doesn't eliminate the challenge of writing that 1,001
char review for the occasional gem that you think deserves it, or a 9
ponter, or an 8 pointer. So it retains a motivation for people to
stretch a little or even a lot, to try making an analysis that (let's
be honest) the author is *likely* to enjoy more because it's more than
a two line expression of reader enjoyment.

This is not an example of ingratitude to other reviewers or of a nasty
competitive streak whose only focus is winning instead of the fun and
the joy of a good story. The Yahoo page has it in all caps: the awards
are based on FEEDBACK. All kinds count, and all are good (except the
flamey variety), but let's be honest: we as authors want detailed,
thoughtful feedback that can go into the guts of our stories and tell
us how they worked, why they were effective, how those highlighted
moments contribute to the effect that the story had on the reviewer,
and what the reader has taken away from the story (if anything). We
want the whole shebang--though that's not to say we're not happy to
receive nice notes and short but encouraging reviews.

But if we want to have a hope of getting something more than that, we
need to build some kind of incentive into the points structure that
will encourage more people to stretch for that level of more detailed
reviewing than simply those people who, by dint of practice or
personality, are predisposed to respond in that manner.

A curved points structure (whether it's based on straight character
counts and percentage levels or a modification of the current points
system) that has a broader range than five points acknowledges both
the pressure of real life that doesn't always allow us to make those
detailed analyses. The curved systme would let our shorter efforts
express *more* accurately what we would wish for the story to receive,
but without succumbing to a purely quantitative rubric (rank this
story on a scale of one to ten, no written feedback involved) or a one
point per vote schema. So you have to make an effort to say what you
want to say and not just say, "I meant for it to be more than that,
really." But it also acknowledges that authors like longer, more
detailed reviews, while providing reviewers with the incentive to
stretch for that level of analysis.

Without the incentive, sure, there may be a few who would do it
anyway, but it will cut out most of the motivation to try for it for
those who are less likely to review at length or in detail. And even
the more wordy ones might at some point get tired of writing a lot for
very little 'recognition' via the points structure and so stop doing
it and start moving towards the lowered maximum.

Dwim

Msg# 6672

Re: points and various voting matters (Dwimordene) Posted by dwimmer\_laik January 07, 2006 - 19:36:19 Topic ID# 6662
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Nerwen Calaelen
<nerwen_calaelen@y...> wrote:
>
> Just wanted to weigh in to restate my objections to using straight
character counts.
> There are basically 2, firstly that it is harder to decide how many
characters eg how many points out of 1000 that a story is worth than
how many points out of 10. <snip>

> 2) It would be very hard to ensure that two equally good stories
got exactly the same vote from me, ie it would take much longer to
write reviews as I would have to be rewriting to get the right number
of characters, not merely within the right range. It could also be
seen to benifit stories about characters with longer names as the same
comment would then have more characters....

Good points, both, and I think you are right. And I would be happier,
for the record, with a sort of scale, not the absolute character
counts. I think it can be done and done fairly and well, but not with
a lower point cap than 10. Anything lower seems harder to work with to
create that scale, plus, seems far too easy and likely to lead to a
lot of tie breakers based on absolute character counts.

Dwim

Msg# 6674

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by Kathy January 07, 2006 - 20:09:31 Topic ID# 6662
More good points…I guess this is why I feel like I could live with
any of the options on the table: 5-point spread, 10-point spread, or
character count—as long as it was weighted in some way. Math is not
my strong suit, but to me a 5-point spread would inherently give more
weight to a 1-point review—even if the points were evenly spaced—
because 1 out of 5 is worth more than 1 out of 10. But I can also
understand the many objections to a lower spread, such as less
ability to gradate one's reviews, or not enough incentive to write
long reviews.

The current 10-point spread IS weighted, as Marta recently pointed
out…but not very much. Maybe the compromise here is to stick with
it, but to increase the weight for lower-point reviews. I wouldn't
mind a weighted character count system either, but as some in the
group seem strongly opposed to it, it might be best to stick as
closely as possibly to the current system, with a few tweaks…?

Kathy (Inkling)


--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
wrote:
> Is the basic reason for the reduction of the scale to a five point
cap
> that we are forgetting the "infinite" distance between no review and
> one review? (In other words, we want to solve the problem of
> non-participation.)
>
> Or is the basic reason for that proposed reduction that we should
> remember to value the fact that someone took the time to review the
> story... as opposed to what? This does not clearly seem to be in
> opposition to the first possibility; they seem rather to complement
> each other like two sides of the very same coin. However, it does
> sound like it's an opposite position to, perhaps, being upset that
> someone didn't leave a ten point review. To being what some would
say
> is "overly competitive"--a complaint that seems to come up at
regular
> intervals, and in fact I think occurred this very week.
>
> If the first is true, I don't think the reduced points cap will
solve
> the problem. We don't even know that the points scale is at all
> related to the problem of non-participation, unless there's been a
> poll of non-participants that I've missed. It seems more likely that
> the problem of non-participation is due to the sheer number of
stories
> entered combined with exhaustion from real life that has other
> priorities than a fanfic competition, plain and simple.
>
> If it *does* have something to do with the points scale, however,
then
> the difference between zero and one, though infinite, is far less
than
> the multiply infinite difference between one and ten, so why would
> reducing the points scale affect non-participation by making it
happen
> less often? The only way I can see it having that effect is if the
> mind of the non-participator says something like this:
>
> "Geez, that's a lot of stories. I'm overwhelmed. I want to
> participate, but I'm just too tired. I feel bad. But look, even if I
> tried, I could only write a one point review. And that's not worth
> anything at all! So really, it doesn't matter if I don't
> participate--I shouldn't feel bad about not leaving that one review,
> it wouldn't have counted anyway."
>
> The problem here is not the points cap, it's the cynicism. If
someone
> feels his or her vote makes no difference, then five points or ten,
> s/he will always find a reason not to vote. Always.
>
> So if number one is the motivation for the points scale change, then
> I'd be very concerned that we might be dealing with an imaginary
> problem, and being lazy like I am, I don't like to deal with
problems
> that I'm not convinced are very real. I need a lot more convincing
to
> be done on behalf of the points scale reduction if this is the
reason
> for it.
>
>
> The second problem is itself problematic to me because I'm not sure
> why it's a problem--thus the effort to find something for it to
> oppose. I'm not sure whether it's intended to locate the problem on
> the side of those *receiving* the reviews, or on the side of those
> *giving* them. My version locates it on the side of the authors, not
> on the side of the reviewers. But I can't be sure that's what's
> intended. I'm not even sure I should be reading it as a separate
> problem or if it's supposed to be there as the intuition that lies
> behind the articulation of the problem as one of non-participation,
> the difference between zero and one.
>
> So I'm really not sure what to think about possibility two as a
reason
> for changing the points scale if I'm looking at the original e-mail,
> which is the same as saying I think it's not a good reason to do so
> since I'm not sure what I should understand by it, assuming it's a
> separate reason at all. If I'm looking at my extrapolation from it,
I
> see another problem we can't solve--no one can make someone refuse
to
> make comparisons that will upset him or her, or make someone
grateful
> for what s/he actually receives.
>
>
> The reason I keep saying I think a curve would work best is that it
> addresses a definite, identifiable problem raised by people who
*have
> actually reviewed* and participated in the post-mortem discussion. I
> can see why it's worth it to make it easier to score points with
fewer
> words, but it doesn't eliminate the challenge of writing that 1,001
> char review for the occasional gem that you think deserves it, or a
9
> ponter, or an 8 pointer. So it retains a motivation for people to
> stretch a little or even a lot, to try making an analysis that
(let's
> be honest) the author is *likely* to enjoy more because it's more
than
> a two line expression of reader enjoyment.
>
> This is not an example of ingratitude to other reviewers or of a
nasty
> competitive streak whose only focus is winning instead of the fun
and
> the joy of a good story. The Yahoo page has it in all caps: the
awards
> are based on FEEDBACK. All kinds count, and all are good (except the
> flamey variety), but let's be honest: we as authors want detailed,
> thoughtful feedback that can go into the guts of our stories and
tell
> us how they worked, why they were effective, how those highlighted
> moments contribute to the effect that the story had on the reviewer,
> and what the reader has taken away from the story (if anything). We
> want the whole shebang--though that's not to say we're not happy to
> receive nice notes and short but encouraging reviews.
>
> But if we want to have a hope of getting something more than that,
we
> need to build some kind of incentive into the points structure that
> will encourage more people to stretch for that level of more
detailed
> reviewing than simply those people who, by dint of practice or
> personality, are predisposed to respond in that manner.
>
> A curved points structure (whether it's based on straight character
> counts and percentage levels or a modification of the current points
> system) that has a broader range than five points acknowledges both
> the pressure of real life that doesn't always allow us to make those
> detailed analyses. The curved systme would let our shorter efforts
> express *more* accurately what we would wish for the story to
receive,
> but without succumbing to a purely quantitative rubric (rank this
> story on a scale of one to ten, no written feedback involved) or a
one
> point per vote schema. So you have to make an effort to say what you
> want to say and not just say, "I meant for it to be more than that,
> really." But it also acknowledges that authors like longer, more
> detailed reviews, while providing reviewers with the incentive to
> stretch for that level of analysis.
>
> Without the incentive, sure, there may be a few who would do it
> anyway, but it will cut out most of the motivation to try for it for
> those who are less likely to review at length or in detail. And even
> the more wordy ones might at some point get tired of writing a lot
for
> very little 'recognition' via the points structure and so stop doing
> it and start moving towards the lowered maximum.
>
> Dwim
>

Msg# 6678

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by sulriel January 08, 2006 - 18:54:15 Topic ID# 6662
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
wrote:> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...>
wrote:> >> > > > I think I've figured out how to verbalize why I
prefer the lower > > point spread and/or the graduated point system.
> >
> > because the BIGGEST deal is the fact that the reader took the
time to > > open the story, read it, click on the MEFA review link
and say > > something nice.
> > <<snipped>>>

> Is the basic reason for the reduction of the scale to a five point
cap> that we are forgetting the "infinite" distance between no review
and> one review? (In other words, we want to solve the problem of>
non-participation.)



No, it's not for the non-participates. I agree with your below
points on that issues. (basically that we're not sure why they didn't
participate and without knowing that we can't take steps to try to
fix it, and also that some things (human nature) can't be fixed)



> Or is the basic reason for that proposed reduction that we should
> remember to value the fact that someone took the time to review the
> story... as opposed to what? This does not clearly seem to be in
> opposition to the first possibility; they seem rather to complement
> each other like two sides of the very same coin. However, it does
> sound like it's an opposite position to, perhaps, being upset that
> someone didn't leave a ten point review. To being what some would
say
> is "overly competitive"--a complaint that seems to come up at
regular
> intervals, and in fact I think occurred this very week.


I *personally* like to 'play hard'. I like to tumble across the
finish line bloody and bruised and exhausted, have a group hug with
the people who kicked my but*, and those but*s I kicked, and all of
us meet at the inn for a pint.

But in a group as mixed as this, with such different backgrounds,
strengths, weakness, etc. ... those who like to play hard typically
come off as bullies (or 'overly competitive'), other people are
shocked and/or hurt and/or upset and/or scream and/or quietly slink
away ... and that's no fun. It's kinda like playing roller derby
when half the group is doing the hokey-pokey. I DO NOT believe that
we should be set up for the lowest common denominator, but I do think
we need balance.

If that comes across as harsh to some people, I apologize ... I'm
trying to say that I appreciate our differences, that I know that
people have different kind of fun.

<<<more snippage>>
> If it *does* have something to do with the points scale, however,
then> the difference between zero and one, though infinite, is far
less than> the multiply infinite difference between one and ten,

what about this? .... what about making the point scale from 5-10?

0-100 characters = 5 pts
101-250 characters = 6pts
251-450 ch = 7pts
451-700 = 8pts
701-1000 = 9pts
1001+ = 10 pts

the purpose of starting with 5 pts being to recognize the effort of a
11 character review (great story!) is not in the keyboard, but in the
reading and the clicking and the reviewing. ... the effort of
registering with the MEFAs and leaving any review at all.

I know that as a reviewer, I didn't review any that I noted that I
needed to keep the review short. .... I worked from the other
side... those that excited me as I read got the mental notes that it
needed a longer review.

in essence, this isn't so much for the authors, because the character
counts and the words for the reviews are going to be the same no
matter what the points are. it's more for the reviewers, that are
pressed for time, or stressed by RL but still want to participate, to
be able to feel that their 100 or 200 character review *does* make a
difference, not just to make the author feel good, but to give them
points toward the award.


> "Geez, that's a lot of stories. I'm overwhelmed. I want to
> participate, but I'm just too tired. I feel bad. But look, even if I
> tried, I could only write a one point review. And that's not worth
> anything at all! So really, it doesn't matter if I don't
> participate--I shouldn't feel bad about not leaving that one review,
> it wouldn't have counted anyway."

> The problem here is not the points cap, it's the cynicism. If
someone
> feels his or her vote makes no difference, then five points or ten,
> s/he will always find a reason not to vote. Always.

I agree to a point. There is cynicism and there are easy excuses for
not doing what you didn't want to do anyway, but I also know that we
all have a Real Life, and also that there was a lot of real hurt last
year.

- is changing the point system going to fix all that - no - I don't
have that illusion. But if I can think of ways to make it easier to
make a difference for those reviewers who *are* honestly pressed for
time and energy, I'm going to make those suggestions.


> > I'd be very concerned that we might be dealing with an imaginary
> problem, and being lazy like I am, I don't like to deal with
problems
> that I'm not convinced are very real. I need a lot more convincing
to
> be done on behalf of the points scale reduction if this is the
reason
> for it.


I can't express to you the depth and the reality of the emotional
hurt that I saw during these awards last year. I absolutely refuse
to name names or specifics, - some was public most was not - the
domino effect and the reverberations were pretty incredible.

Most of the participants enjoyed it and the fun and feedback and all
worked well. - and that's great. I also know that there's no way to
please everyone and I'm not trying to do that either. - I'm just
trying to make small adjustments that I think will alleviate some of
the problems I saw that I think can be helped.

><<snipped>>>

The reason I keep saying I think a curve would work best is that it
> addresses a definite, identifiable problem raised by people who
*have
> actually reviewed* and participated in the post-mortem discussion. I
> can see why it's worth it to make it easier to score points with
fewer
> words, but it doesn't eliminate the challenge of writing that 1,001
> char review for the occasional gem that you think deserves it, or a
9
> pointer, or an 8 pointer. So it retains a motivation for people to
> stretch a little or even a lot, to try making an analysis that
(let's
> be honest) the author is *likely* to enjoy more because it's more
than
> a two line expression of reader enjoyment.
>
> This is not an example of ingratitude to other reviewers or of a
nasty
> competitive streak whose only focus is winning instead of the fun
and
> the joy of a good story. The Yahoo page has it in all caps: the
awards
> are based on FEEDBACK. All kinds count, and all are good (except the
> flamey variety), but let's be honest: we as authors want detailed,
> thoughtful feedback that can go into the guts of our stories and
tell
> us how they worked, why they were effective, how those highlighted
> moments contribute to the effect that the story had on the reviewer,
> and what the reader has taken away from the story (if anything). We
> want the whole shebang--though that's not to say we're not happy to
> receive nice notes and short but encouraging reviews.

does my 5-10 pt scale address most of that?

> <more snipped>

... sorry to be so slow to answer, yahoo was being wonky yesterday.


Sulriel

Msg# 6680

What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the answe Posted by dwimmer\_laik January 09, 2006 - 11:01:52 Topic ID# 6662
Sulriel,

Thank you for responding, and I appreciate that you're concerned for
fellow participants--though whether they were reviewers or authors, I
can't tell. I don't even know whether making that distinction would be
important, such is the level of darkness into which I am plunged.

The which being so, I'm afraid I'm beginning to get more than just
slightly frustrated, and that is going to result in some fairly blunt
phrasing. It is my hope that this will destroy the need to do any
guesswork about what I am asking for in terms of an explanation of
your position in favor of reducing the points scale. There are some
very specific questions I need answered if I'm going to be convinced
your position is the best solution for MEFAs, but I keep getting
answers that are too general to be of any use to me, since I can claim
that same general interest in acknowledging the pressures of RL for my
own position as easily and with as much justification (so far as I can
see) as you can claim it for yours.

> > Or is the basic reason for that proposed reduction that we should
> > remember to value the fact that someone took the time to review the
> > story... as opposed to what? This does not clearly seem to be in
> > opposition to the first possibility; they seem rather to complement
> > each other like two sides of the very same coin. However, it does
> > sound like it's an opposite position to, perhaps, being upset that
> > someone didn't leave a ten point review. To being what some would
> say
> > is "overly competitive"--a complaint that seems to come up at
> regular
> > intervals, and in fact I think occurred this very week.
>
>
> I *personally* like to 'play hard'. I like to tumble across the
> finish line bloody and bruised and exhausted, have a group hug with
> the people who kicked my but*, and those but*s I kicked, and all of
> us meet at the inn for a pint.
>
> But in a group as mixed as this, with such different backgrounds,
> strengths, weakness, etc. ... those who like to play hard typically
> come off as bullies (or 'overly competitive')
> other people are
> shocked and/or hurt and/or upset and/or scream and/or quietly slink
> away ... and that's no fun. It's kinda like playing roller derby
> when half the group is doing the hokey-pokey. I DO NOT believe that
> we should be set up for the lowest common denominator, but I do think
> we need balance.

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any of this, so I'm not seeing balance
in this effort to reduce the points scale, I'm seeing an effort to
move towards some "solution" to a problem that doesn't seem to exist
except on the level of "feelings" that are being filtered through a
third party, which third party feels bound to reveal absolutely no
specifics. I appreciate that you're keeping confidences, but something
has to give here.

I can't make any judgments about the proposed solution being balanced
or reasonable, or not, here. I just have no data on which to base a
judgment of balance/reasonability. Zero. None. Also, I'm extremely
confused here: what is it that constitutes "playing hard" at MEFAs?
Writing a lot of reviews? Writing a long review? Writing reviews
consistently higher than some average I'm unaware of? Thinking we need
a larger scale than five points? Trying to abide by the rules that
make the reviewing competitive, by saying "*I* think this is worth 2
points and another story is worth 5 points and this one over here
worth 10 points?" If I don't know the answer to these questions, how
am I supposed to recognize who's playing hard, and (more importantly)
whether that is an unfair way of playing?

Do you see the problem I'm having here? There's some floating standard
of reasonable competition based on some nebulous (to me) and anonymous
(certainly to me) sense of "hurt feelings" that no one will specify,
quantify, or correlate with the specific set up of the awards. Saying
that lowering the points scale is a possible solution to that sense of
hurt is not sufficient--it doesn't tell me what the problem is or how
it relates to the points scale. And where we start talking about those
specifics, it seems as if the hurt feelings drop out and it becomes a
question of which proposal is more attractive--but that's not the
question that's getting answered so far, unfortunately.

> If that comes across as harsh to some people, I apologize ...
> I'm
> trying to say that I appreciate our differences, that I know that
> people have different kind of fun.

Yes, of course, but the relevant question, if I'm not mistaken, is
exactly what kind of fun was it that the rest of us have had by virtue
of the way MEFAs is set up that is causing significant problems for an
apparently vast number of other people? And how does it relate to the
points structure? Are we talking about authors speaking from the
receiving end of things or reviewers speaking from the giving end of
things, or both? And if both, how should we see them in relation to
each other through the points scale?

I need answers to these questions if we're going to maintain this
sense of hurt is relevant to *this* discussion. Otherwise, I'm bowing
out of this discussion because there's nothing to be meaningfully
talked about, I don't think, unless we can get an accurate fix on what
the problem is supposed to be, so we can start assessing it and any
possible solutions properly.

> <<<more snippage>>
> > If it *does* have something to do with the points scale, however,
> then> the difference between zero and one, though infinite, is far
> less than> the multiply infinite difference between one and ten,
>
> what about this? .... what about making the point scale from 5-10?
>
> 0-100 characters = 5 pts
> 101-250 characters = 6pts
> 251-450 ch = 7pts
> 451-700 = 8pts
> 701-1000 = 9pts
> 1001+ = 10 pts
>
> the purpose of starting with 5 pts being to recognize the effort of a
> 11 character review (great story!) is not in the keyboard, but in the
> reading and the clicking and the reviewing. ... the effort of
> registering with the MEFAs and leaving any review at all.

Well, recall that I am not a math person, but this looks like the same
5 point spread, it's just that instead of 1-5, we're looking at 5-10,
with some weighting thrown in for good measure. The difference between
a three point review and a one point review is exactly the same as the
difference between a seven point review and a five point review.

So we award five times as much, under this schema, to the first level
of char counts, and only two times as much to the highest level if we
compare it with the proposed 1-5 points scale schema, while
maintaining the same five point scale. Furthermore, comparing this
proposed range to the last five point range proposed, the difference
between the bottom and the top was a multiple of five originally, and
with this new proposal, it's a multiple of two. In addition, there's
an internal points threshold change that means you can hit the
midpoint of the scoring range with just 1/5, or about 20% of the total
possible countable characters. That's a pretty heavy weight on a much
reduced scale for the lower char-count reviews, and I think it's too
much of a weight to be fair, and too restricted a range to allow for a
fair weighting. I will defer, however, to those who are more
mathematically sophisticated if they say I'm reading this incorrectly
from a mathematical standpoint.

But in any case, whether I'm right or wrong mathematically, please
explain how this is going to make people less pained by comparison to
their current pained state in such a way that it is clearly better to
*both* reduce the points spread *and* weight the char thresholds, than
to simply curve the points spread.

That is what I need in order to be convinced that we should go with
this schema; I do not need a general assertion that this will better
reflect recognition for that great indefinable, "effort." After all,
I'm also trying to address the fact that we all have other things to
do than write reviews, so some greater allowance should be made for
that in the points structure, as I've repeatedly said *and tried to
show how that assertion links up to my proposed solution*. If my
demonstration fails to convince, I need you to explain *why*.

> I know that as a reviewer, I didn't review any that I noted that I
> needed to keep the review short. .... I worked from the other
> side... those that excited me as I read got the mental notes that it
> needed a longer review.

Different reviewing habits, then. I did both, since the point to me
was to try and say what I liked or thought was good about a story,
while keeping a mindful eye on the fact that it is still a competition
where length of review counts.

<snip>

> > The problem here is not the points cap, it's the cynicism. If
> someone
> > feels his or her vote makes no difference, then five points or ten,
> > s/he will always find a reason not to vote. Always.
>
> I agree to a point. There is cynicism and there are easy excuses for
> not doing what you didn't want to do anyway, but I also know that we
> all have a Real Life, and also that there was a lot of real hurt last
> year.

See paragraphs above; please also note that I've said the exact same
thing about wanting to make a consideration for RL stresses multiple
times, so please do not read my observation of the cynicism of that
hypothetical non-participator's position as my overlooking the point
about having RL issues to contend with. I'm arguing with your specific
solution, not with your general perspective for viewing the question
of whether we should reorganize the points structure--not when that
perspective is that of RL business that consumes most of our energy,
at least.

Where I disagree with your general perspective is the incorporation of
this hidden set of complaints that you claim are informing your
position. I really don't mean to be rude, snotty, b*tchy, bratty,
arrogant, bullying OR 'overly competitive', here, all of which I have
the feeling I'll be considered, but I am getting extremely frustrated
with the vagueness here. I feel like it is almost not worth making a
comment at this point, because really, what am I even talking about if
I'm trying to address changes to the way MEFAs work that are based on
some reports of utterly unspecific complaints?

> - is changing the point system going to fix all that - no - I don't
> have that illusion. But if I can think of ways to make it easier to
> make a difference for those reviewers who *are* honestly pressed for
> time and energy, I'm going to make those suggestions.

<paste>

> I'm just
> trying to make small adjustments that I think will alleviate some of
> the problems I saw that I think can be helped.

I understand all that, but you're not answering my question when I say
show me how *your* schema is clearly superior to simply curving the
points structure in the way either Anthony (increase range and alter
thresholds) or I have suggested (keep 10 point range and alter
thresholds). Instead, I get appeals to general statements I've clearly
already agreed to, or else appeals to privately received complaints,
the relevant nature of which is not disclosed, as justifications for
your position. So we haven't even uncovered the specific things
generating disagreement between us, which means we can't possibly
settle the matter reasonably.

What does cutting down the scale bring to this party that curving the
points structure fails to do, and how does it relate to these
complaints you've been receiving? If this isn't explained to me, then
I can't do anything but throw up my hands over here and say I can't
agree with your proposal since it's more drastic than mine while not
clearly addressing anything that my position can't address. Why should
that much weight be given to shorter reviews, and why should we
artificially depress competition by narrowing the points range (or, if
you prefer, make it more 'competitive' since we'll probably (I stress
again I'm not a mathematically savvy person, so I could be wrong here,
either due to inadequate theory or simply due to what just happens to
fall out next year) need more tie-breakers based on absolute character
counts if we lower the points scale, and a tie is, according to common
conceptions, the result of qualitatively very evenly matched
competitors)?

> > > I'd be very concerned that we might be dealing with an imaginary
> > problem, and being lazy like I am, I don't like to deal with
> problems
> > that I'm not convinced are very real. I need a lot more convincing
> to
> > be done on behalf of the points scale reduction if this is the
> reason
> > for it.
>
>
> I can't express to you the depth and the reality of the emotional
> hurt that I saw during these awards last year. I absolutely refuse
> to name names or specifics, - some was public most was not - the
> domino effect and the reverberations were pretty incredible.

Now we get down to what should be the brass tacks of your position,
yet I at least find there's really nothing here that would let us
decide between your proposal and mine, or even come to a reasonable
and reasoned disagreement that would allow us each to walk away in
peace over whatever decision is made, even if it wasn't in favor of
our preferred position.

A third party report that is that unspecific is enough to make me say,
ok some people had deep problems, and I'm sorry that it wasn't nearly
as much fun for some as for others. But such a report in no way makes
me think it is time to rework the points structure in the specific way
that you have suggested, because all you've told me is *that* people
are hurt. I don't know why they were hurt, so I can't make any
judgment based on that about whether your solution is the right one to
remedy it. I don't think anyone should make a judgment based on total
ignorance of relvant particulars. Nor do I think it's fair of anyone
to ask us to make a decision on those grounds, if you'll pardon my
uncensored opinion.

If the admins have all this data from injured parties, they should
present an anonymous and very careful paraphrase of it so we can all
make decisions about what seems the best way to handle the problem.
Either that, or they should just make an executive decision by virtue
of being the only ones with any actual data to work with, and stop
asking the rest of us to participate in this decision since we could
only participate irresponsibly if the major reason to change the
points scale is to bind up wounds we can't even see.

And now that I've been an annoying broken record for several long
paragraphs, I'm going to sign off.

Dwim

Msg# 6681

What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the answe Posted by sulriel January 09, 2006 - 18:23:32 Topic ID# 6662
>>>Thank you for responding, and I appreciate that you're concerned
forfellow participants

that's my main concern

>>>-though whether they were reviewers or authors, I
can't tell. I don't even know whether making that distinction would be
important,

doesn't really matter. all are participants and needed to make the
awards work.


>>>such is the level of darkness into which I am plunged.


offers Dwim a candle.


>>>The which being so, I'm afraid I'm beginning to get more than just
slightly frustrated,


one thing I'd like to make clear is that I'm not frustrated or upset
in any way with this conversation. - I'm not fighting to convince
anyone else of my viewpoint so much as I am trying to explain why I
feel and think the way I do about this issue. If people empathize,
or understand or agree or not is up to each individual, and how the
admin feel about what I say, and if they put it up to a vote - all
that is out of my hands. .... I'm just trying to present a
viewpoint that I personally feel would help improve the awards and
I'm trying to answer questions raised by my posts. I'm not even sure
it would help, but it's the best I can come up with.


>>>acknowledging the pressures of RL for my
own position as easily and with as much justification (so far as I can
see) as you can claim it for yours.

yes, my RL is quite full. but I make fanfiction and the MEFAs a
priority in my spotty downtime. but you and I aren't the issue.
we're here, debating - reading and reviewing as need be. ... I'm
trying to speak for others who spoke to me in confidence. I don't
have a lot to stand on that case.... all I mean to do is present
what I think would have helped them to see if other people agree.


<<<much snipped>>

>>>Do you see the problem I'm having here? There's some floating
standardof reasonable competition based on some nebulous (to me) and
anonymous(certainly to me) sense of "hurt feelings" that no one will
specify,quantify, or correlate with the specific set up of the
awards.


yes. I understand. but as I said. I'm simply presenting an idea
that I think will help a few people a little.

you and other individual have to decide to agree or not. I don't
have the answers to a lot of your questions.

as I've said before, I believe these awards have an awful lot going
right - that's why I'm still here - I saw some great upset from a
few and I'm looking around for ways to help *those people also* maybe
have as much fun as the rest of us.

that's all. I'm not trying to change the world. if you don't
agree with my ideas, I'm ok with that. - maybe most people don't
agree. I'm ok with that too.



>>>Yes, of course, but the relevant question, if I'm not mistaken, is
exactly what kind of fun was it that the rest of us have had by virtue
of the way MEFAs is set up that is causing significant problems for an
apparently vast number of other people?


no. not a vast number. I heard from a few ( ... 'more than
three' ... ) but not a vast number. I think with the vastness a
great time was had by all.

but how many did anyone not hear from that didn't have a good time?
that's the unknown quantity - and really nothing can be done about
that but acknowledge the possibility of their existence.

in regards to the vastness Vs the few. If we can tweak the point
system to help those few without depriving that number of the
vastness, I see that as worthwhile.



> what about this? .... what about making the point scale from 5-10?
>
> 0-100 characters = 5 pts
> 101-250 characters = 6pts
> 251-450 ch = 7pts
> 451-700 = 8pts
> 701-1000 = 9pts
> 1001+ = 10 pts
>
> the purpose of starting with 5 pts being to recognize the effort of
a
> 11 character review (great story!) is not in the keyboard, but in
the
> reading and the clicking and the reviewing. ... the effort of
> registering with the MEFAs and leaving any review at all.

>>>>Well, recall that I am not a math person, but this looks like the
same5 point spread, it's just that instead of 1-5, we're looking at 5-
10,with some weighting thrown in for good measure. The difference
betweena three point review and a one point review is exactly the
same as thedifference between a seven point review and a five point
review.


starting at five points acknowledges that the FIRST point is the
most important one.



>>But in any case, whether I'm right or wrong mathematically, please
explain how this is going to make people less pained by comparison to
their current pained state in such a way that it is clearly better to
*both* reduce the points spread *and* weight the char thresholds, than
to simply curve the points spread.


it's more of an emotional thing than a mathematical thing. My hope
is that it will keep in the forefront a reminder of the amount of
effort each review takes in logging on the system, selecting a story,
reading the story, reviewing the story - the length of the review is
gravy.

it also weights the reviews more than just the point spread. two
minimum reviews at 5 pts each equal one long review of 10 pts, - as
opposed to the previous system of needing ten minimum reviews needed
to match one long review. .. so it also weights it in favor of the
number of reviewers, which I think is a good thing and will help
level out the difference in reviewers styles. - although keep in
mind that character count will be the final tie breaker so ultimately
those very long reviews could still tip the scale.



> > Where I disagree with your general perspective is the
incorporation ofthis hidden set of complaints that you claim are
informing yourposition. I really don't mean to be rude, snotty,
b*tchy, bratty,arrogant, bullying OR 'overly competitive', here, all
of which I havethe feeling I'll be considered, but I am getting
extremely frustratedwith the vagueness here. I feel like it is almost
not worth making acomment at this point, because really, what am I
even talking about ifI'm trying to address changes to the way MEFAs
work that are based osome reports of utterly unspecific complaints?


it is what it is. if you choose to discount what I've said that's
your choice, and I don't make any of the above judgements on you. I
have a great deal of respect for your pragmatic attitude in most
cases - and even, really, in this case, in standing up against the
vague 'touchy-feely'. I don't have any way to convince you
otherwise, although I'm curious what purpose you imagine I would have
going on about this if I didn't feel strongly about it.



>> If the admins have all this data from injured parties, they should
present an anonymous and very careful paraphrase of it so we can all
make decisions about what seems the best way to handle the problem.
Either that, or they should just make an executive decision by virtue
of being the only ones with any actual data to work with, and stop
asking the rest of us to participate in this decision since we could
only participate irresponsibly if the major reason to change the
points scale is to bind up wounds we can't even see.
>>>And now that I've been an annoying broken record for several long
paragraphs, I'm going to sign off.>>>Dwim


I don't know what was said to anyone else and no one else has stepped
into this discussion, maybe no one else will. I really think I've
said all I have to say about it, and I have tired-head from working
on RL - abused horse (so-called 'training') on one hand and a starved
herd on the other. - ... tends to keep all this 'fun' stuff in
perspective for me.


Sulriel

Msg# 6682

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Laura January 09, 2006 - 22:36:46 Topic ID# 6662
-- "sulriel" <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
>> it's more of an emotional thing than a mathematical thing. My hope
>> is that it will keep in the forefront a reminder of the amount of
>> effort each review takes in logging on the system, selecting a
>> story, reading the story, reviewing the story - the length of the
>> review is gravy.
>>
>> it also weights the reviews more than just the point spread. two
>> minimum reviews at 5 pts each equal one long review of 10 pts, - as
>> opposed to the previous system of needing ten minimum reviews
>> needed to match one long review. .. so it also weights it in favor
>> of the number of reviewers, which I think is a good thing and will
>> help level out the difference in reviewers styles. - although
>> keep in mind that character count will be the final tie breaker so
>> ultimately those very long reviews could still tip the scale.

I hope no one minds if I jump in really quickly, because I think Sulriel has hit upon a fundamental difference in the way that some of us are approaching this issue. She's addressed it more clearly than I did, anyway, and I wanted to highlight two things.

1) Quantity vs. Length

If I understand this correctly, Sulriel is putting forth the opinion that two short reviews should be the equal of one long review. If I understand others correctly, this opinion is shared.

Here, I think, is at least one of the basic differences in our approach because I disagree. I think one giant review ought to be worth *more* than two short reviews. I think the problem with quick, short reviews is that it favors the well-known authors and ignores the authors who might be REALLY good but just aren't widely known. I think giving unknown authors who are able to inspire gushing reviews an edge in this is a good thing.

Should a single person writing enormous reviews be able to change the outcome of a subcategory where many are participating? No. But I think that longer reviews should have more of an influence than shorter reviews. I think the margin between the shortest review and the longest counted review should be more than five points.

2) The worth of a short review

The proposal for a 5-10 scale caught my attention. Initially, I had the same reaction Dwim did: How is that any different than a point scale of 1-5 aside from extra weight at the low end of the scale? Sulriel's explanation, though, intrigues me, because I do see psychological merit to it. Even though reviewers know that a 5 point review is the lowest, it's still a bigger number than 1 and that means something. The most practical among us will shrug and say lowest is still lowest, but others will look at a 5 point review in the 5-10 scale and still be able to feel good about it.

But it doesn't solve the problem of quantity vs. length. In fact, if anything, it makes it worse. Under the current scale, it takes ten of the lowest reviews (1 point) to equal one of the highest (10 points). Under the proposed 1-5 scale, it would take five of the lowest reviews (1 point) to equal one of the longest reviews (5 points). Under the 5-10 scale, it would only take TWO of the lowest reviews (5 points) to equal the highest (10 points).

Let's return, for a moment, to our scenario of Fred and Fredita. So Fred, our incredible but unknown Silm writer, has caught the attention of a reviewer and garnered an enormous and gushing review in which the reviewer confesses his/her inability to sleep at night due to the sheer power of such an incredible story. In the meantime, two of Fredita's faithful fans have wandered over from the adventure category and taken a chance on her good but not necessarily great Silm story. They both leave reviews saying something like, "Good job, I liked this." Under the 5-10 scale, Fredita's story is now tied with Fred's, and under a tie-breaker, Fredita would win because her story has more reviews than Fred's does.

I was uncomfortable with the weight given in the 1-5 scale. I'm even more uncomfortable with the 5-10. However, I do see the psychological merit in raising the worth of the lower reviews. Like Sulriel, I was also privy to a few complaints about the inability to give long reviews. Some felt their input wouldn't count for much as they weren't overly verbose and couldn't fill a page of gush without padding.

But can I submit that there might be a few other reasons? We had an ENORMOUS number of competitors this year. I was very overwhelmed initially and wondered if I would be able to make any dent in the number of stories out there to review. And I wondered if I would be able to leave any long reviews because I would be so pressed for time. I know others felt the same way. I don't think we'll have the same problem this coming year. We might still have quite a few stories competing, but it doesn't feel to me as though we're going to have something on the order of 1200. Can I suggest waiting this debate out one more year to see if the problem really is the point scale? And if it is, we can revisit this topic with a clearer picture of what people are really having trouble with. Because the main problem this year (to my mind, at least) was the author reviews and the sheer number of stories entered in the competition. Once we solve that, it will be easier to tweak the other concerns.

If people are convinced that this is one of the primary problems, though, may I suggest an alternative to those already proposed? What if we ordered the point scale by odd numbers? Something along these lines:

0-100 characters = 1 pt
101-250 characters = 3pts
251-450 ch = 5pts
451-700 = 7pts
701-1000 = 9pts
1001+ = 10 pts

The baseline reviews (those consisting of "Great job, I liked this") are still only worth one point. But if people choose to put a bit more effort into their review ("Great job! I liked this. I can see Frodo feeling this way after the War of the Ring, and I liked what you did with Sam, too.") will be able to boost their review up into the 3-point range. So although the lowest is still 1, it doesn't take much to pull it up two points. But it does require four of the 3-point reviews to overtake a 10 point review, which makes me a bit more comfortable than the 5-10 scale. And there's still a baseline of 1 for the "Nice work, cute story" reviews, so that it takes ten of them to beat a 10-point review.

I like the system we have now more than I like this alternative, but if people feel that strongly about changing the points around, maybe we could think about this possibility.

Just a thought.

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
-------------------------------------------------------------

Msg# 6686

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by rhapsody\_the\_bard January 10, 2006 - 4:54:50 Topic ID# 6662
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
<snip>

>>Yes, of course, but the relevant question, if I'm not mistaken,
>>is exactly what kind of fun was it that the rest of us have had by
>>virtue of the way MEFAs is set up that is causing significant
>>problems for an apparently vast number of other people?
>
> no. not a vast number. I heard from a few ( ... 'more than
> three' ... ) but not a vast number. I think with the vastness a
> great time was had by all.

I am sorry but I am getting very tired from this shadowdancing. A
few months ago, when I adressed the concerns of the Fred's out there
who I left glowing reviews while in the categories they ran they
were literally overrun by Freditta's... there were some names
*openly* thrown on the table (it was about hurt feelings by author's
hardly getting reviews). Not only was that highly uncomfortable for
a person who thought she could address her concerns to me in
private, but also she got dragged out into the open about something
people assumed she complained about. Not once, but a couple of
times. Yeah great, so much for keeping things in confidence. I felt
so embarressed when that happened. And now I read of 'others', just
a few, who feel hurt of not getting a long review, because Fred's
out there did get them. Or being beaten in the 'competition' by a
Fred who indeed just beat a person by getting long reviews. So first
I am being told, some months ago, that it is part of the MEFA's &
competing in it and yes it was a pity people rather reviewed those
they knew because of the time pressure. Just bad luck, maybe it
works better next year. But those persons won't run next year again
because basically, Freditta's win, so why should the Fred's out
there bother to participate. Sure, I can understand that, being a
Fred myself (as in before the MEFA's very unknown with hardly any
feedback).

By now I just wonder why people get upset if people decide to choose
to read those they didn't knew *also* given the time pressure. This
is just too much. Also because I remember very clearly the moment
people signalled there were stories still unreviewed, reviewers like
me thought, we can't let that happen and left, in most cases a long
review so that the author didn't feel excluded from the MEFA's.
Also, it was openly encouraged by the admin to do so.

I got overjoyed reactions from authors with that just one review,
and they were so happy: precious feedback that made them glow so
much. Now it is thrown back in those reviewers faces because, well
you never can win around here can you?

I agree with Marigold, Dwim and Thundera (again), but I don't think
I will participate next year. Why, because one moment something is
said and the next thing something else. First we want to do
something also for those unknown authors, sure we can cut back on
nominations, now we want to change a *fair* points system because
long review seem to outbalance short reviews and discourage people
to review. Is this really the case, because I have seen stories win
with loads of small reviews from a story with two long reviews.

I truly wonder, like Dwim, if there isn't another problem that is
lying under the surface. I don't think changing the point system
will encourage people leaving more reviews. It is more about reading
habits, remaining close to what you like and feel the need to leave
a review on. Hey, and that people admitted that, I do appreciate the
honesty. But right now I feel over and over again being bashed for
leaving long reviews, or that people think I padded them for getting
to the ten points. Those people can look up and see that I left
reviews ranging from 10 to 2 or 3 points reviews where ever I
thought I could leave feedback. Because that is what was important
to me: giving the author that. Heck that is the whole reason why I
wanted to participate in the MEFA's. And not watching how author's
roll over the finish line in a competition or being such an author.

Back to the proposed points system. Like Thundera said, it will
encourage the Fredita fans because, hey, a short review gives their
Freditta an extra guaranteed 5 points with not so much effort. Just
type a few lines and your done. Move on to the next one, a friend is
helped. Very easily done. With the current and fair system in place,
still those Freditta fans can leave a quick and short review, move
along, while the Fred discoverers sit down, take their time to type
a review telling why they loved this particular work. Reading
stories was for me the time consuming thing, but I can't read a
story without having so much thoughts about it that I want to say
why I loved it so much. But I disgress. With a tie, the nr's of
characters left (I believe) will tip the scale, but it at least
sounds more honest than the proposed new points system. To me it
feels too easy to rig the competition.

Maybe making the review season longer helps, or as we discussed
earlier, allowing and encouraging people to leave reviews earlier
does work. But not this. Good luck with whatever you decide on.

Rhapsody
(sorry to be rambling, but I needed to get this off my chest)

Msg# 6687

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Nerwen Calaelen January 10, 2006 - 5:23:18 Topic ID# 6662
There are several points I want to make in this debate.
Before anyone accuses me of not understanding how it can hurt to get no reviews, I had a story nominated in 2004 which got no reviews, so I can see that side of the issue. However, in 2005 I looked at EVERY story entered in the awards. I am sure that due to time preasure some of the stories I did not review deserved a review, but I am also aware that there were a lot of stories that I read through and then decided not to review. I think that it has to be acknoledged that there is no quality control on stories being entered for the awards and so there could well be stories that have been read by several people and not reviewed. (assuming I am not the only person who does this). I am concerned that there is pressure being put on people to review stories that they feel do not deserve it. If a lower point scheme or a sceme with higher starting points was introduced, I know that I for one would actually submit fewer reviews as this year I reviewed any story that was interesting
enough for me to read through it and that I could think of anything complementary to say about it.
These are awards, so someone has to win in every catogory. If people are being hurt by not winning, they should not allow their stories to enter. The only way to solve this problem would be to turn the whole awards into a total feedback exercise ie not giving out awards.
Another fact that I would like to point out is that sometimes, Fredetta deserves the award - just because an author is well know does not meen that she/he can not write well (I could give examples but I am sure that everyone can think of someon their own).

Overall, it seems that some people are unhappy about awards because they lose, or perceive unfairness. If they are unhappy because they lose, I don't think we can do anything about that, it is an inherant part of giving awards. If they are unhappy because they think it is unfair, then their concerns should be brought up, BUT if the group does not agree with them, then it is up to them what to do. Changing things to please one complainer, rather than at the decision of an open participation group is very clique and would lose the awads more participants, I would have thought.

Just my thoughts.

Jenn





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

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

Msg# 6702

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by dwimmer\_laik January 11, 2006 - 19:39:51 Topic ID# 6662
<it is what it is. if you choose to discount what I've said that's
your choice, and I don't make any of the above judgements on you. I
have a great deal of respect for your pragmatic attitude in most
cases - and even, really, in this case, in standing up against the
vague 'touchy-feely'. I don't have any way to convince you
otherwise, although I'm curious what purpose you imagine I would have
going on about this if I didn't feel strongly about it.>

Well, to be perfectly blunt, I *thought* your purpose was to make an
argument that would show me why you think your proposed solution is
actually helpful given the problem you were seeing, and better than
the other proposal of instituting some kind of points curve. It had, I
thought, all the hallmarks of an argument--an effort to articulate why
you thought such and such a way about X, which led you to adopt such
and such a view about how to handle X, and the publicity of that
explanation, in the context of an on-going debate about how or whether
to alter the way we handle X, seemed to be serving notice that you
thought we should take up your position and analyze it like any other
proposal for fairness, logic, and likely efficacy.

If that's not what you were doing, then I don't know how to respond to
those posts, since I thought you were trying to make a case to me and
to everyone that your idea was something to consider seriously as a
means of solving a problem you believed was significantly impairing
MEFA's functioning.

Your implied question quoted above, "I'm curious what purpose you
imagine I would have going on about this if I didn't feel strongly
about it" just brings out the fact that we are clearly operating on
very different assumptions about what is at stake and *how* it is at
stake. This is not a question that would ever have occurred to me to
pose, because it doesn't enter into my equation to question whether or
not you personally had strong feelings about the matter, since that
isn't relevant to making the case for or against a points scale
reduction. You keep couching your objections and responses to me in
terms of feelings--your feelings towards me, your feelings for those
who have expressed private hurt, your feelings (and the strength of
them) for the idea of reducing the points scale, the feelings of
privately injured parties. Feelings, and keeping them from being hurt,
seem to be the horizon that informs your major posts as the most
important thing. You speak about feelings as if that's what's at stake
in every decision, and should be in a very DIRECT manner.

For me, feelings are at stake but indirectly and secondarily: the only
time it's worth considering them in the context of an awards project
is when they are demonstrably the result of an unfair structure,
"unfair" to be determined relative to the acknowledged limits of the
awards. If that can't be demonstrated, I have nothing to say about
feelings that is relevant to a post-mortem discussion of what should
and should not be changed next year. Privately, I can offer to buy the
hurt parties a drink if they're ever in my neck of the woods and over
legal drinking age, but that's a private thing having nothing to do
(nor should it have anything to do) with any official structure of the
MEFAs.

I'm not saying that I make no appeal to feelings or have no place for
them, but it's clear that by comparison with your posts, they don't
have the same place or function in how I address the issue of how
points should be awarded. This is fouling things up, just as my
assumption, that the argumentative features of your own posts meant
you were making an argument, was fouling things up.

That's why I was frustrated. I thought you were asking me to treat
your posts as an argument in favor of your proposal to reduce the
points scale, and to consider it seriously when from what I could see,
you hadn't given me any relevant argument or evidence to work with in
comparing the two proposed systems.

Now that I've read your latest post, I can see that that wasn't what
you were asking me or anyone else to do. I confess, I still don't
understand how your proposal, in its form and intent, fits into a
debate about what is to be done, or what sort of response you would
expect of me or anyone to your previous posts. But that's a different
kind of question, one that has nothing to do with MEFAs at all, even
tangentially, so I'm happy to leave that be.

Hopefully, we can now move usefully onward having figured out (I
think) why the disconnect was happening.

Dwim

Msg# 6703

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by sulriel January 11, 2006 - 21:26:08 Topic ID# 6662
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
wrote:>>>>>>><snipped>privately injured parties. Feelings, and
keeping them from being hurt,seem to be the horizon that informs your
major posts as the mostimportant thing. You speak about feelings as
if that's what's at stakein every decision, and should be in a very
DIRECT manner. >>>>>>>>>For me, feelings are at stake but indirectly
and secondarily: the onlytime it's worth considering them in the
context of an awards projectis when they are demonstrably the result
of an unfair structur


hmmmmm... this is a good point. - because for me, the MEFAs are about
feelings. Feeling good, - reading stories that make you feel good or
some other strong emotion, or make you thoughtful - it makes me feel
good to leave reviews that will make people feel good. - and I like
feeling good about any reviews I get. - and it makes me feel good to
think that other people are mostly the same. Yes, it is a contest
and I agree that we can't lose sight of that, but IMO, a feel-good
contest should revolve around feelings. - too many things in life
don't, and I come here to feel good for a couple hours a day.



>>That's why I was frustrated. I thought you were asking me to treat
your posts as an argument in favor of your proposal to reduce the


ah! no - ... it wasn't an argument. It was a proposal to
consider. ...a thought tossed on the table to be chewed on. the
dog didn't hunt. - time to move on. no frustration, no argument,
just tick it off the list and move to the next subject.


>>> I confess, I still don't understand how your proposal, in its
form and intent, fits into adebate about what is to be done, or what
sort of response you would

I know that and apologize for the lack of clarity in my articulation.


<much snippage>

>>Hopefully, we can now move usefully onward having figured out (I
think) why the disconnect was happening.

Agreed. A decision's been made on this issue and it's time to move
on. - unless you want to have a group hug or something, but I
normally like to get good and drunk before that sort of thing so give
me a couple hours warning. ;)

Sulriel

Msg# 6704

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by dwimmer\_laik January 12, 2006 - 3:12:58 Topic ID# 6662
>
> hmmmmm... this is a good point. - because for me, the MEFAs are about
> feelings. Feeling good, - reading stories that make you feel good or
> some other strong emotion, or make you thoughtful - it makes me feel
> good to leave reviews that will make people feel good. - and I like
> feeling good about any reviews I get. - and it makes me feel good to
> think that other people are mostly the same. Yes, it is a contest
> and I agree that we can't lose sight of that, but IMO, a feel-good
> contest should revolve around feelings. - too many things in life
> don't, and I come here to feel good for a couple hours a day.
>

I realize that it's no fun to deal with a tense discussion or get a
bad review or give a bad review, and I understand that yes, these are
the "feel good" awards. But I can't think you mean that awards
revolving around feelings means that *everyone* must be happy or that
it's possible to please everyone or that we should try to. But if the
awards revolve around feelings to a more limited degree than that, I'm
not seeing in this or any other statement you've made anything that
gives us a means of determining how to meaningfully discuss those
limits in terms of MEFA procedural review.

To be clear, I'm not asking for an argument, here, just pointing out
what will clearly play a significant role in any similar disagreements
we may have.

> >>> I confess, I still don't understand how your proposal, in its
> form and intent, fits into adebate about what is to be done, or what
> sort of response you would
>
> I know that and apologize for the lack of clarity in my articulation.

Rather than the apology, in the future, even if you're not originally
making an argument, I'd really appreciate it if you'd at least meet me
halfway when I say I need an argument or an explanation in very
specific terms for your position. I'm not trying to evade the
responsibility to make a choice about how I stand w.r.t. a suggestion,
I'm trying to put myself in a good position to do so, by understanding
what it is you're proposing and why, and how that compares with other
possibilities. If I can't get an argument or an explanation that seems
relevant in that situation, my only option is to reject the idea. But
I wouldn't be rejecting it on any other grounds than that it's hardly
reasonable or fair to let whim rule my choices.

<snip>

>unless you want to have a group hug or something, but I
> normally like to get good and drunk before that sort of thing so give
> me a couple hours warning. ;)

I'd be happy to do a round of white russians, but I've not yet been
the type of person to get drunk and get all tactile... unless we're
playing darts, in which case, watch your ribs, my elbows are sharp.

Dwim

Msg# 6713

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 12, 2006 - 18:25:05 Topic ID# 6662
Suffice it to say, I agree with Dwim. I don't know that I've ever managed a
10-pointer, but I feel like I like the openness to it isf I should come
across a great gem and find the time to expound. By leveling the scale to
5, that's all the gem it can be. Takes some of the sparkle off.

Let's look again at why there is a cap: to prevent vote-stacking. Nothing
else. Yes, ASC had a problem with someone babbling on saying nothing to
beef up a vote. Putting a cap means you can blather on all you want, but it
won't get you any more than 10. It's not to encourage longer votes or
discourage shorter ones. It's only to make sure vote-stuffing votes don't
get out of hand.

--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 dwimmer_laik
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:21 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters
> (general reply)
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think I've figured out how to verbalize why I prefer the
> lower point
> > spread and/or the graduated point system.
> >
> > because the BIGGEST deal is the fact that the reader took
> the time to
> > open the story, read it, click on the MEFA review link and say
> > something nice.
> >
> > I like and agree with that if they liked it a lot and had a lot of
> > nice things to say that counted for more points.
> >
> > but the difference between no review and any review is infinite. The
> > *1st* point is the most important one and I believe, to
> some extent,
> > we lose sight of that.
> >
> >
> > I think the five point spread, with the character count wieghted to
> > the lower points would help keep this in the minds of the
> reviewers. -
> > those that wanted to write more could, and a very long review could
> > make the difference in a points-tie.
> >
>
> Is the basic reason for the reduction of the scale to a five
> point cap that we are forgetting the "infinite" distance
> between no review and one review? (In other words, we want to
> solve the problem of
> non-participation.)
>
> Or is the basic reason for that proposed reduction that we
> should remember to value the fact that someone took the time
> to review the story... as opposed to what? This does not
> clearly seem to be in opposition to the first possibility;
> they seem rather to complement each other like two sides of
> the very same coin. However, it does sound like it's an
> opposite position to, perhaps, being upset that someone
> didn't leave a ten point review. To being what some would say
> is "overly competitive"--a complaint that seems to come up at
> regular intervals, and in fact I think occurred this very week.
>
> If the first is true, I don't think the reduced points cap
> will solve the problem. We don't even know that the points
> scale is at all related to the problem of non-participation,
> unless there's been a poll of non-participants that I've
> missed. It seems more likely that the problem of
> non-participation is due to the sheer number of stories
> entered combined with exhaustion from real life that has
> other priorities than a fanfic competition, plain and simple.
>
> If it *does* have something to do with the points scale,
> however, then the difference between zero and one, though
> infinite, is far less than the multiply infinite difference
> between one and ten, so why would reducing the points scale
> affect non-participation by making it happen less often? The
> only way I can see it having that effect is if the mind of
> the non-participator says something like this:
>
> "Geez, that's a lot of stories. I'm overwhelmed. I want to
> participate, but I'm just too tired. I feel bad. But look,
> even if I tried, I could only write a one point review. And
> that's not worth anything at all! So really, it doesn't
> matter if I don't participate--I shouldn't feel bad about not
> leaving that one review, it wouldn't have counted anyway."
>
> The problem here is not the points cap, it's the cynicism. If
> someone feels his or her vote makes no difference, then five
> points or ten, s/he will always find a reason not to vote. Always.
>
> So if number one is the motivation for the points scale
> change, then I'd be very concerned that we might be dealing
> with an imaginary problem, and being lazy like I am, I don't
> like to deal with problems that I'm not convinced are very
> real. I need a lot more convincing to be done on behalf of
> the points scale reduction if this is the reason for it.
>
>
> The second problem is itself problematic to me because I'm
> not sure why it's a problem--thus the effort to find
> something for it to oppose. I'm not sure whether it's
> intended to locate the problem on the side of those
> *receiving* the reviews, or on the side of those
> *giving* them. My version locates it on the side of the
> authors, not on the side of the reviewers. But I can't be
> sure that's what's intended. I'm not even sure I should be
> reading it as a separate problem or if it's supposed to be
> there as the intuition that lies behind the articulation of
> the problem as one of non-participation, the difference
> between zero and one.
>
> So I'm really not sure what to think about possibility two as
> a reason for changing the points scale if I'm looking at the
> original e-mail, which is the same as saying I think it's not
> a good reason to do so since I'm not sure what I should
> understand by it, assuming it's a separate reason at all. If
> I'm looking at my extrapolation from it, I see another
> problem we can't solve--no one can make someone refuse to
> make comparisons that will upset him or her, or make someone
> grateful for what s/he actually receives.
>
>
> The reason I keep saying I think a curve would work best is
> that it addresses a definite, identifiable problem raised by
> people who *have actually reviewed* and participated in the
> post-mortem discussion. I can see why it's worth it to make
> it easier to score points with fewer words, but it doesn't
> eliminate the challenge of writing that 1,001 char review
> for the occasional gem that you think deserves it, or a 9
> ponter, or an 8 pointer. So it retains a motivation for
> people to stretch a little or even a lot, to try making an
> analysis that (let's be honest) the author is *likely* to
> enjoy more because it's more than a two line expression of
> reader enjoyment.
>
> This is not an example of ingratitude to other reviewers or
> of a nasty competitive streak whose only focus is winning
> instead of the fun and the joy of a good story. The Yahoo
> page has it in all caps: the awards are based on FEEDBACK.
> All kinds count, and all are good (except the flamey
> variety), but let's be honest: we as authors want detailed,
> thoughtful feedback that can go into the guts of our stories
> and tell us how they worked, why they were effective, how
> those highlighted moments contribute to the effect that the
> story had on the reviewer, and what the reader has taken away
> from the story (if anything). We want the whole
> shebang--though that's not to say we're not happy to receive
> nice notes and short but encouraging reviews.
>
> But if we want to have a hope of getting something more than
> that, we need to build some kind of incentive into the points
> structure that will encourage more people to stretch for that
> level of more detailed reviewing than simply those people
> who, by dint of practice or personality, are predisposed to
> respond in that manner.
>
> A curved points structure (whether it's based on straight
> character counts and percentage levels or a modification of
> the current points
> system) that has a broader range than five points
> acknowledges both the pressure of real life that doesn't
> always allow us to make those detailed analyses. The curved
> systme would let our shorter efforts express *more*
> accurately what we would wish for the story to receive, but
> without succumbing to a purely quantitative rubric (rank this
> story on a scale of one to ten, no written feedback involved)
> or a one point per vote schema. So you have to make an effort
> to say what you want to say and not just say, "I meant for it
> to be more than that, really." But it also acknowledges that
> authors like longer, more detailed reviews, while providing
> reviewers with the incentive to stretch for that level of analysis.
>
> Without the incentive, sure, there may be a few who would do
> it anyway, but it will cut out most of the motivation to try
> for it for those who are less likely to review at length or
> in detail. And even the more wordy ones might at some point
> get tired of writing a lot for very little 'recognition' via
> the points structure and so stop doing it and start moving
> towards the lowered maximum.
>
> Dwim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6714

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 12, 2006 - 18:27:58 Topic ID# 6662
I'm good with that.

Someone who likes math more than me would have to do the tweaking though.

--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 Kathy
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:08 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters
> (general reply)
>
> More good points.I guess this is why I feel like I could live
> with any of the options on the table: 5-point spread,
> 10-point spread, or character count-as long as it was
> weighted in some way. Math is not my strong suit, but to me
> a 5-point spread would inherently give more weight to a
> 1-point review-even if the points were evenly spaced- because
> 1 out of 5 is worth more than 1 out of 10. But I can also
> understand the many objections to a lower spread, such as
> less ability to gradate one's reviews, or not enough
> incentive to write long reviews.
>
> The current 10-point spread IS weighted, as Marta recently
> pointed out.but not very much. Maybe the compromise here is
> to stick with it, but to increase the weight for lower-point
> reviews. I wouldn't mind a weighted character count system
> either, but as some in the group seem strongly opposed to it,
> it might be best to stick as closely as possibly to the
> current system, with a few tweaks.?
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
> wrote:
> > Is the basic reason for the reduction of the scale to a five point
> cap
> > that we are forgetting the "infinite" distance between no
> review and
> > one review? (In other words, we want to solve the problem of
> > non-participation.)
> >
> > Or is the basic reason for that proposed reduction that we should
> > remember to value the fact that someone took the time to review the
> > story... as opposed to what? This does not clearly seem to be in
> > opposition to the first possibility; they seem rather to complement
> > each other like two sides of the very same coin. However, it does
> > sound like it's an opposite position to, perhaps, being upset that
> > someone didn't leave a ten point review. To being what some would
> say
> > is "overly competitive"--a complaint that seems to come up at
> regular
> > intervals, and in fact I think occurred this very week.
> >
> > If the first is true, I don't think the reduced points cap will
> solve
> > the problem. We don't even know that the points scale is at all
> > related to the problem of non-participation, unless there's been a
> > poll of non-participants that I've missed. It seems more
> likely that
> > the problem of non-participation is due to the sheer number of
> stories
> > entered combined with exhaustion from real life that has other
> > priorities than a fanfic competition, plain and simple.
> >
> > If it *does* have something to do with the points scale, however,
> then
> > the difference between zero and one, though infinite, is far less
> than
> > the multiply infinite difference between one and ten, so why would
> > reducing the points scale affect non-participation by making it
> happen
> > less often? The only way I can see it having that effect is if the
> > mind of the non-participator says something like this:
> >
> > "Geez, that's a lot of stories. I'm overwhelmed. I want to
> > participate, but I'm just too tired. I feel bad. But look,
> even if I
> > tried, I could only write a one point review. And that's not worth
> > anything at all! So really, it doesn't matter if I don't
> > participate--I shouldn't feel bad about not leaving that
> one review,
> > it wouldn't have counted anyway."
> >
> > The problem here is not the points cap, it's the cynicism. If
> someone
> > feels his or her vote makes no difference, then five points or ten,
> > s/he will always find a reason not to vote. Always.
> >
> > So if number one is the motivation for the points scale
> change, then
> > I'd be very concerned that we might be dealing with an imaginary
> > problem, and being lazy like I am, I don't like to deal with
> problems
> > that I'm not convinced are very real. I need a lot more convincing
> to
> > be done on behalf of the points scale reduction if this is the
> reason
> > for it.
> >
> >
> > The second problem is itself problematic to me because I'm not sure
> > why it's a problem--thus the effort to find something for it to
> > oppose. I'm not sure whether it's intended to locate the problem on
> > the side of those *receiving* the reviews, or on the side of those
> > *giving* them. My version locates it on the side of the
> authors, not
> > on the side of the reviewers. But I can't be sure that's what's
> > intended. I'm not even sure I should be reading it as a separate
> > problem or if it's supposed to be there as the intuition that lies
> > behind the articulation of the problem as one of non-participation,
> > the difference between zero and one.
> >
> > So I'm really not sure what to think about possibility two as a
> reason
> > for changing the points scale if I'm looking at the
> original e-mail,
> > which is the same as saying I think it's not a good reason to do so
> > since I'm not sure what I should understand by it, assuming it's a
> > separate reason at all. If I'm looking at my extrapolation from it,
> I
> > see another problem we can't solve--no one can make someone refuse
> to
> > make comparisons that will upset him or her, or make someone
> grateful
> > for what s/he actually receives.
> >
> >
> > The reason I keep saying I think a curve would work best is that it
> > addresses a definite, identifiable problem raised by people who
> *have
> > actually reviewed* and participated in the post-mortem
> discussion. I
> > can see why it's worth it to make it easier to score points with
> fewer
> > words, but it doesn't eliminate the challenge of writing
> that 1,001
> > char review for the occasional gem that you think deserves it, or a
> 9
> > ponter, or an 8 pointer. So it retains a motivation for people to
> > stretch a little or even a lot, to try making an analysis that
> (let's
> > be honest) the author is *likely* to enjoy more because it's more
> than
> > a two line expression of reader enjoyment.
> >
> > This is not an example of ingratitude to other reviewers or of a
> nasty
> > competitive streak whose only focus is winning instead of the fun
> and
> > the joy of a good story. The Yahoo page has it in all caps: the
> awards
> > are based on FEEDBACK. All kinds count, and all are good
> (except the
> > flamey variety), but let's be honest: we as authors want detailed,
> > thoughtful feedback that can go into the guts of our stories and
> tell
> > us how they worked, why they were effective, how those highlighted
> > moments contribute to the effect that the story had on the
> reviewer,
> > and what the reader has taken away from the story (if anything). We
> > want the whole shebang--though that's not to say we're not happy to
> > receive nice notes and short but encouraging reviews.
> >
> > But if we want to have a hope of getting something more than that,
> we
> > need to build some kind of incentive into the points structure that
> > will encourage more people to stretch for that level of more
> detailed
> > reviewing than simply those people who, by dint of practice or
> > personality, are predisposed to respond in that manner.
> >
> > A curved points structure (whether it's based on straight character
> > counts and percentage levels or a modification of the current points
> > system) that has a broader range than five points acknowledges both
> > the pressure of real life that doesn't always allow us to
> make those
> > detailed analyses. The curved systme would let our shorter efforts
> > express *more* accurately what we would wish for the story to
> receive,
> > but without succumbing to a purely quantitative rubric (rank this
> > story on a scale of one to ten, no written feedback involved) or a
> one
> > point per vote schema. So you have to make an effort to say
> what you
> > want to say and not just say, "I meant for it to be more than that,
> > really." But it also acknowledges that authors like longer, more
> > detailed reviews, while providing reviewers with the incentive to
> > stretch for that level of analysis.
> >
> > Without the incentive, sure, there may be a few who would do it
> > anyway, but it will cut out most of the motivation to try
> for it for
> > those who are less likely to review at length or in detail.
> And even
> > the more wordy ones might at some point get tired of writing a lot
> for
> > very little 'recognition' via the points structure and so
> stop doing
> > it and start moving towards the lowered maximum.
> >
> > Dwim
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6716

Re: points and various voting matters (general reply) Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 12, 2006 - 18:36:31 Topic ID# 6662
It still flattens it. 5-10 is still just 5. And I don't think a 2 word
review needs to be rewarded by generating 5 points. Yes, the effort of
producing any review is good, but really, a drabble can be written in a few
minutes, and that's 100 words, probably more than 500 characters. If I
write a review that's only 50 characters long, I'll be doing so on purpose.
Because I was able to find something good in the story. Not because I
thought it should win. If I think a story should win, I'm going to write
more about it. Even ifI only manage a 3. Sometimes I mean to only give a
1.

Weighted, not scewed.

--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 sulriel
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 6:52 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters
> (general reply)
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik"
> <dwimmer_laik@y...> wrote:> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com,
> "sulriel" <Sulriel@h...> wrote:> >> > > > I think I've
> figured out how to verbalize why I prefer the lower > > point
> spread and/or the graduated point system.
> > >
> > > because the BIGGEST deal is the fact that the reader took the
> time to > > open the story, read it, click on the MEFA review
> link and say > > something nice.
> > > <<snipped>>>
>
> > Is the basic reason for the reduction of the scale to a five point
> cap> that we are forgetting the "infinite" distance between no review
> and> one review? (In other words, we want to solve the problem of>
> non-participation.)
>
>
>
> No, it's not for the non-participates. I agree with your below
> points on that issues. (basically that we're not sure why they didn't
> participate and without knowing that we can't take steps to try to
> fix it, and also that some things (human nature) can't be fixed)
>
>
>
> > Or is the basic reason for that proposed reduction that we should
> > remember to value the fact that someone took the time to review the
> > story... as opposed to what? This does not clearly seem to be in
> > opposition to the first possibility; they seem rather to complement
> > each other like two sides of the very same coin. However, it does
> > sound like it's an opposite position to, perhaps, being upset that
> > someone didn't leave a ten point review. To being what some would
> say
> > is "overly competitive"--a complaint that seems to come up at
> regular
> > intervals, and in fact I think occurred this very week.
>
>
> I *personally* like to 'play hard'. I like to tumble across the
> finish line bloody and bruised and exhausted, have a group hug with
> the people who kicked my but*, and those but*s I kicked, and all of
> us meet at the inn for a pint.
>
> But in a group as mixed as this, with such different backgrounds,
> strengths, weakness, etc. ... those who like to play hard typically
> come off as bullies (or 'overly competitive'), other people are
> shocked and/or hurt and/or upset and/or scream and/or quietly slink
> away ... and that's no fun. It's kinda like playing roller derby
> when half the group is doing the hokey-pokey. I DO NOT believe that
> we should be set up for the lowest common denominator, but I do think
> we need balance.
>
> If that comes across as harsh to some people, I apologize ... I'm
> trying to say that I appreciate our differences, that I know that
> people have different kind of fun.
>
> <<<more snippage>>
> > If it *does* have something to do with the points scale, however,
> then> the difference between zero and one, though infinite, is far
> less than> the multiply infinite difference between one and ten,
>
> what about this? .... what about making the point scale from 5-10?
>
> 0-100 characters = 5 pts
> 101-250 characters = 6pts
> 251-450 ch = 7pts
> 451-700 = 8pts
> 701-1000 = 9pts
> 1001+ = 10 pts
>
> the purpose of starting with 5 pts being to recognize the effort of a
> 11 character review (great story!) is not in the keyboard, but in the
> reading and the clicking and the reviewing. ... the effort of
> registering with the MEFAs and leaving any review at all.
>
> I know that as a reviewer, I didn't review any that I noted that I
> needed to keep the review short. .... I worked from the other
> side... those that excited me as I read got the mental notes that it
> needed a longer review.
>
> in essence, this isn't so much for the authors, because the character
> counts and the words for the reviews are going to be the same no
> matter what the points are. it's more for the reviewers, that are
> pressed for time, or stressed by RL but still want to participate, to
> be able to feel that their 100 or 200 character review *does* make a
> difference, not just to make the author feel good, but to give them
> points toward the award.
>
>
> > "Geez, that's a lot of stories. I'm overwhelmed. I want to
> > participate, but I'm just too tired. I feel bad. But look, even if I
> > tried, I could only write a one point review. And that's not worth
> > anything at all! So really, it doesn't matter if I don't
> > participate--I shouldn't feel bad about not leaving that one review,
> > it wouldn't have counted anyway."
>
> > The problem here is not the points cap, it's the cynicism. If
> someone
> > feels his or her vote makes no difference, then five points or ten,
> > s/he will always find a reason not to vote. Always.
>
> I agree to a point. There is cynicism and there are easy excuses for
> not doing what you didn't want to do anyway, but I also know that we
> all have a Real Life, and also that there was a lot of real hurt last
> year.
>
> - is changing the point system going to fix all that - no - I don't
> have that illusion. But if I can think of ways to make it easier to
> make a difference for those reviewers who *are* honestly pressed for
> time and energy, I'm going to make those suggestions.
>
>
> > > I'd be very concerned that we might be dealing with an imaginary
> > problem, and being lazy like I am, I don't like to deal with
> problems
> > that I'm not convinced are very real. I need a lot more convincing
> to
> > be done on behalf of the points scale reduction if this is the
> reason
> > for it.
>
>
> I can't express to you the depth and the reality of the emotional
> hurt that I saw during these awards last year. I absolutely refuse
> to name names or specifics, - some was public most was not - the
> domino effect and the reverberations were pretty incredible.
>
> Most of the participants enjoyed it and the fun and feedback and all
> worked well. - and that's great. I also know that there's no way to
> please everyone and I'm not trying to do that either. - I'm just
> trying to make small adjustments that I think will alleviate some of
> the problems I saw that I think can be helped.
>
> ><<snipped>>>
>
> The reason I keep saying I think a curve would work best is that it
> > addresses a definite, identifiable problem raised by people who
> *have
> > actually reviewed* and participated in the post-mortem discussion. I
> > can see why it's worth it to make it easier to score points with
> fewer
> > words, but it doesn't eliminate the challenge of writing that 1,001
> > char review for the occasional gem that you think deserves it, or a
> 9
> > pointer, or an 8 pointer. So it retains a motivation for people to
> > stretch a little or even a lot, to try making an analysis that
> (let's
> > be honest) the author is *likely* to enjoy more because it's more
> than
> > a two line expression of reader enjoyment.
> >
> > This is not an example of ingratitude to other reviewers or of a
> nasty
> > competitive streak whose only focus is winning instead of the fun
> and
> > the joy of a good story. The Yahoo page has it in all caps: the
> awards
> > are based on FEEDBACK. All kinds count, and all are good (except the
> > flamey variety), but let's be honest: we as authors want detailed,
> > thoughtful feedback that can go into the guts of our stories and
> tell
> > us how they worked, why they were effective, how those highlighted
> > moments contribute to the effect that the story had on the reviewer,
> > and what the reader has taken away from the story (if anything). We
> > want the whole shebang--though that's not to say we're not happy to
> > receive nice notes and short but encouraging reviews.
>
> does my 5-10 pt scale address most of that?
>
> > <more snipped>
>
> ... sorry to be so slow to answer, yahoo was being wonky yesterday.
>
>
> Sulriel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6717

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 12, 2006 - 18:51:47 Topic ID# 6662
That's better than the 5-point scale. And see my more recent post about why
I post 1 point reviews. It's not for lack of time. I don't think I've seen
anyone (up to this point) admit to that. If I'm rushed for time, I'll
probably at least give a 3 to a story I liked fairly well. But a 1 is given
for a reason. And a 0 (no vote) is left for a reason too. Not every story
is a gem. Not a fun thing to hear, but it's truth. And while this awards
program is based on feedback that means a lot of SUBJECTIVITY goes into it.
We can't take the subjectivity out of it. That would be the most fair,
wouldn't it? To give everyone equal feedback so that no one feels bad for
not getting a review or only getting a few short ones. But we can't and
won't do that.

Some stories are better than others. My idea of which are which may differ
from the next person. The only control I have over that is my votes for
those stories. None for those that I don't feel are good. Short for those
that are somewhat good. Long for ones that are very good.

So, I'm okay with weighting, but maybe not so much to the 1 point as to
making it easier to get to the 2 (or 3 as you suggest).

--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 Laura
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:34 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] What is the problem to which "reduce
> the points scale" is the answer?
>
> -- "sulriel" <Sulriel@htcomp.net> wrote:
> >> it's more of an emotional thing than a mathematical thing.
> My hope
> >> is that it will keep in the forefront a reminder of the amount of
> >> effort each review takes in logging on the system,
> selecting a story,
> >> reading the story, reviewing the story - the length of the
> review is
> >> gravy.
> >>
> >> it also weights the reviews more than just the point spread. two
> >> minimum reviews at 5 pts each equal one long review of 10
> pts, - as
> >> opposed to the previous system of needing ten minimum
> reviews needed
> >> to match one long review. .. so it also weights it in
> favor of the
> >> number of reviewers, which I think is a good thing and will
> >> help level out the difference in reviewers styles. - although
> >> keep in mind that character count will be the final tie breaker so
> >> ultimately those very long reviews could still tip the scale.
>
> I hope no one minds if I jump in really quickly, because I
> think Sulriel has hit upon a fundamental difference in the
> way that some of us are approaching this issue. She's
> addressed it more clearly than I did, anyway, and I wanted to
> highlight two things.
>
> 1) Quantity vs. Length
>
> If I understand this correctly, Sulriel is putting forth the
> opinion that two short reviews should be the equal of one
> long review. If I understand others correctly, this opinion is shared.
>
> Here, I think, is at least one of the basic differences in
> our approach because I disagree. I think one giant review
> ought to be worth *more* than two short reviews. I think the
> problem with quick, short reviews is that it favors the
> well-known authors and ignores the authors who might be
> REALLY good but just aren't widely known. I think giving
> unknown authors who are able to inspire gushing reviews an
> edge in this is a good thing.
>
> Should a single person writing enormous reviews be able to
> change the outcome of a subcategory where many are
> participating? No. But I think that longer reviews should
> have more of an influence than shorter reviews. I think the
> margin between the shortest review and the longest counted
> review should be more than five points.
>
> 2) The worth of a short review
>
> The proposal for a 5-10 scale caught my attention. Initially,
> I had the same reaction Dwim did: How is that any different
> than a point scale of 1-5 aside from extra weight at the low
> end of the scale? Sulriel's explanation, though, intrigues
> me, because I do see psychological merit to it. Even though
> reviewers know that a 5 point review is the lowest, it's
> still a bigger number than 1 and that means something. The
> most practical among us will shrug and say lowest is still
> lowest, but others will look at a 5 point review in the 5-10
> scale and still be able to feel good about it.
>
> But it doesn't solve the problem of quantity vs. length. In
> fact, if anything, it makes it worse. Under the current
> scale, it takes ten of the lowest reviews (1 point) to equal
> one of the highest (10 points). Under the proposed 1-5 scale,
> it would take five of the lowest reviews (1 point) to equal
> one of the longest reviews (5 points). Under the 5-10 scale,
> it would only take TWO of the lowest reviews (5 points) to
> equal the highest (10 points).
>
> Let's return, for a moment, to our scenario of Fred and
> Fredita. So Fred, our incredible but unknown Silm writer, has
> caught the attention of a reviewer and garnered an enormous
> and gushing review in which the reviewer confesses his/her
> inability to sleep at night due to the sheer power of such an
> incredible story. In the meantime, two of Fredita's faithful
> fans have wandered over from the adventure category and taken
> a chance on her good but not necessarily great Silm story.
> They both leave reviews saying something like, "Good job, I
> liked this." Under the 5-10 scale, Fredita's story is now
> tied with Fred's, and under a tie-breaker, Fredita would win
> because her story has more reviews than Fred's does.
>
> I was uncomfortable with the weight given in the 1-5 scale.
> I'm even more uncomfortable with the 5-10. However, I do see
> the psychological merit in raising the worth of the lower
> reviews. Like Sulriel, I was also privy to a few complaints
> about the inability to give long reviews. Some felt their
> input wouldn't count for much as they weren't overly verbose
> and couldn't fill a page of gush without padding.
>
> But can I submit that there might be a few other reasons? We
> had an ENORMOUS number of competitors this year. I was very
> overwhelmed initially and wondered if I would be able to make
> any dent in the number of stories out there to review. And I
> wondered if I would be able to leave any long reviews because
> I would be so pressed for time. I know others felt the same
> way. I don't think we'll have the same problem this coming
> year. We might still have quite a few stories competing, but
> it doesn't feel to me as though we're going to have something
> on the order of 1200. Can I suggest waiting this debate out
> one more year to see if the problem really is the point
> scale? And if it is, we can revisit this topic with a clearer
> picture of what people are really having trouble with.
> Because the main problem this year (to my mind, at least) was
> the author reviews and the sheer number of stories entered in
> the competition. Once we solve that, it will be easier to
> tweak the other concerns.
>
> If people are convinced that this is one of the primary
> problems, though, may I suggest an alternative to those
> already proposed? What if we ordered the point scale by odd
> numbers? Something along these lines:
>
> 0-100 characters = 1 pt
> 101-250 characters = 3pts
> 251-450 ch = 5pts
> 451-700 = 7pts
> 701-1000 = 9pts
> 1001+ = 10 pts
>
> The baseline reviews (those consisting of "Great job, I liked
> this") are still only worth one point. But if people choose
> to put a bit more effort into their review ("Great job! I
> liked this. I can see Frodo feeling this way after the War of
> the Ring, and I liked what you did with Sam, too.") will be
> able to boost their review up into the 3-point range. So
> although the lowest is still 1, it doesn't take much to pull
> it up two points. But it does require four of the 3-point
> reviews to overtake a 10 point review, which makes me a bit
> more comfortable than the 5-10 scale. And there's still a
> baseline of 1 for the "Nice work, cute story" reviews, so
> that it takes ten of them to beat a 10-point review.
>
> I like the system we have now more than I like this
> alternative, but if people feel that strongly about changing
> the points around, maybe we could think about this possibility.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6725

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 13, 2006 - 1:48:12 Topic ID# 6662
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rhapsody_the_bard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:55 AM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: What is the problem to which "reduce
> the points scale" is the answer?
>

> By now I just wonder why people get upset if people decide to
> choose to read those they didn't knew *also* given the time
> pressure. This is just too much. Also because I remember very
> clearly the moment people signalled there were stories still
> unreviewed, reviewers like me thought, we can't let that
> happen and left, in most cases a long review so that the
> author didn't feel excluded from the MEFA's.
> Also, it was openly encouraged by the admin to do so.

Well, I encourage anyone who has the time and gumption to do that. I know I
can't. And I don't want to discourage anyone who can't either. I've said it
from the beginning, and I think it's out there on the main page of the
website: read what you want to read. If you want to read a story because no
one has reviewed it, by all means, do so. If you want to read a story
because it features your favorite character, do so. If you want to read a
story because you are familiar with an author's work, do so. If you want to
read a story because someone else's review made you think outside your usual
box, absolutely do so.


> I got overjoyed reactions from authors with that just one
> review, and they were so happy: precious feedback that made
> them glow so much. Now it is thrown back in those reviewers
> faces because, well you never can win around here can you?
>
> I agree with Marigold, Dwim and Thundera (again), but I don't
> think I will participate next year. Why, because one moment
> something is said and the next thing something else. First we
> want to do something also for those unknown authors, sure we
> can cut back on nominations, now we want to change a *fair*
> points system because long review seem to outbalance short
> reviews and discourage people to review. Is this really the
> case, because I have seen stories win with loads of small
> reviews from a story with two long reviews.

I may not be around much anymore, but I'm still here to veto if need be. I
haven't gotten to that point yet. I would veto a 5-point spread. But it
doesn't seem to be heading in that direction. I would veto anything that
discourages people to write reviews. Long or short. That's the basis of
these awards. These awards will cease to exist before they become a simple
vote structure or anything ressembling it (everyone is guaranteed the same
amount of points would ressemble it). I love getting long reviews. I love
it when people take the time to write them. I wish I could. I used to be
able to write more, pre-MegaStress. Heck, now I can't even spell ressemble.
(Post-GigaStress)

I think what we really want is a balance. A balance where short reviews
aren't short-shrifted or handicapped too much. But long reviews aren't
devalued either.

I meant what I posted before about sometimes there being a reason for a low
score. It may sound harsh when everyone's trying for "feel-good" but the
case is that reviews are subjective and there is not qualifying criteria for
nomination. Sometimes we get stories that aren't so good. (Some opinions
may differ on just which stories those are.) We have to have a low end of
the scale for those stories. Thus the 5-point or the 5-10 just won't work.
It would overly weight the short reviews. If I give someone a 25-character
review, I don't want that story to win.

However, we don't want to devalue them so much that those times when it's
not a matter of story quality that makes the review short but time or RL
pressures does, that the vote still counts for something.

Maybe the Bell curve idea is the right one. Or does that weight to the
middle? We don't want to weight to the middle. I'm not a mathmetician.
But isn't the balance idea in this case one that someone else mentioned,
less space between the first couple of points and more space between the
last couple of points?

> I truly wonder, like Dwim, if there isn't another problem
> that is lying under the surface. I don't think changing the
> point system will encourage people leaving more reviews. It
> is more about reading habits, remaining close to what you
> like and feel the need to leave a review on. Hey, and that
> people admitted that, I do appreciate the honesty. But right
> now I feel over and over again being bashed for leaving long
> reviews, or that people think I padded them for getting to
> the ten points. Those people can look up and see that I left
> reviews ranging from 10 to 2 or 3 points reviews where ever I
> thought I could leave feedback. Because that is what was
> important to me: giving the author that. Heck that is the
> whole reason why I wanted to participate in the MEFA's. And
> not watching how author's roll over the finish line in a
> competition or being such an author.

Admittled competition is part of the awards. Feedback is the heart of them.
But if we just wanted a feedback fest, we needn't hand out points or awards.
There is a competitive streak in most of us. Some more than others. The
awards is part of the draw here. The promise of potential feedback is more
bait on that hook. If it was just a feedback-fest, would we get as much
feedback?

So both of those aspects are part of it.

> Back to the proposed points system. Like Thundera said, it
> will encourage the Fredita fans because, hey, a short review
> gives their Freditta an extra guaranteed 5 points with not so
> much effort. Just type a few lines and your done. Move on to
> the next one, a friend is helped. Very easily done. With the
> current and fair system in place, still those Freditta fans
> can leave a quick and short review, move along, while the
> Fred discoverers sit down, take their time to type a review
> telling why they loved this particular work. Reading stories
> was for me the time consuming thing, but I can't read a story
> without having so much thoughts about it that I want to say
> why I loved it so much. But I disgress. With a tie, the nr's
> of characters left (I believe) will tip the scale, but it at
> least sounds more honest than the proposed new points system.
> To me it feels too easy to rig the competition.

It's looking more and more like the present system will remain. If anything,
it's looking like it will be tweaked but not overhauled.

>
> Maybe making the review season longer helps, or as we
> discussed earlier, allowing and encouraging people to leave
> reviews earlier does work. But not this. Good luck with
> whatever you decide on.

I really hope you don't leave us, Rhapsody. I know it can hurt sometimes to
see something you like change. I pick my battles. See the non-negotiables
list. RL has caused me to back off far sooner than I had ever planned. I
knew someday I'd get married and adopt children. I didn't think of that when
I started the MEFA's though. I'd been single so long.... And voila, Mr.
Time-stealer comes along....

No, really, it's a good thing for me that he's come along. As much as love
fandom and fanfiction, sometimes RL comes first. Most times. I'm starting
a marriage and a family. That will take priority over the MEFAs. I'll try to
make time, at least here and their, and Marta has promised to keep me
aprised of important events.

But now I'm rambling. Sometimes the proposed changes hurt. Sometimes they're
a bit scary. I know I don't want to poke my nose back in here in 5 years
and not recognize the place. But I also have some amount of faith that
because this worked in 2004, the LOTR fandom found out that such an awards
program based on feedback can work and be pleasant and produce positive
feelings, there will be enough people who value it around to keep it from
being destroyed.

--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

Msg# 6727

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Marta Layton January 13, 2006 - 23:00:21 Topic ID# 6662
>

Hey guys,

I'm trying to wade through the reviews that have been made so far, and
frankly it's a bit quagmirish. (Probably my own fault, the fact that
I'm so far behind and simply worn out by some RL-ish things to the
point I don't trust myself to snap at you guys.) I'm not going to
comment on a lot of this, and don't interpret that as me thinking it's
not *worth* commenting. In an ideal world, where my post would actually
be somewhat timely, I'd have a lot to say on these really meaty
comments. But unfrotunately it's a far from ideal world and my
responses would be so behind I think they'd only lead us to rehash old
points which isn't helpful.

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:22:16 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Nerwen Calaelen <nerwen_calaelen@yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points
> scale" is the answer?
>
> <snip>
> However, in 2005 I looked at EVERY story entered in the awards. I am
> sure that due to time preasure some of the stories I did not review
> deserved a review, but I am also aware that there were a lot of
> stories that I read through and then decided not to review. I think
> that it has to be acknoledged that there is no quality control on
> stories being entered for the awards and so there could well be
> stories that have been read by several people and not reviewed.
> (assuming I am not the only person who does this). I am concerned
> that there is pressure being put on people to review stories that they
> feel do not deserve it. If a lower point scheme or a sceme with
> higher starting points was introduced, I know that I for one would
> actually submit fewer reviews as this year I reviewed any story that
> was interesting
> enough for me to read through it and that I could think of anything
> complementary to say about it.

First, on the QC issue -- there isn't in the traditional sense of that
word. Short of a few basic criteria like available without having to
join a website and not having been entered before, every story is
eligible to be entered and there aren't a list of qualifications
related to the writing that we use to screen nominations. I do want to
be clear, though -- I think that every nominator should be exercising
some sort of QC. If you nominate something you should believe it's a
good story. Of course, exactly what qualifies will differ from
nominator to nominator. Tastes vary, and a story that you really like I
might not choose to nominate or even enjoy at all.

Second, I think you're right in that there seems to be a lot of
pressure to review every story. If I liked every story enough to make
it to the end I would give it at least a short revview, but that was
really hard and to be frank next year I will probably be more
discerning in the stories I vote for and the stories I don't.

(Oh, and to anyone whose story I never reviewed - this doesn't mean it
was dull! There were loads of stories I never got to read at all.)

You know, the five-point system was (in my mind) intended to give
shorter reviews more weight. My thinking was that this would
simultaneously make it easier for people to not have to vote for every
story they read, and at the same time give those shorter reviews enough
weight to inspire people to make that jump to writing a review at all.
I don't think we need to bend over backwards to coax four words out of
someone, but at the same time I don't want to make someone feel bad
because they can "only" write one point. but at the same time iit would
give more weight to even a single point, so if you wrote any review
you'd have to do it with the iknowledge that it was worth more.

Obviously the five-point system isn't the direction we want to go in. I
say all of thiwsw mostly to explain that I think you and I are coming
from really similar directions.

> These are awards, so someone has to win in every catogory. If people
> are being hurt by not winning, they should not allow their stories to
> enter. The only way to solve this problem would be to turn the whole
> awards into a total feedback exercise ie not giving out awards.

Again, I agree with you here. With the feedback and everything, I think
this aspect of the awards is sometimes downplayed. And while I don't
want it to be just a contest, I also don't want it to be just a way to
get feedback. I think both aspects are vital.

Perhaps this is something we need to emphasise more in our letters to
nominated authors. Remind them that this is a contest and that means
that some people won't win. And so if an author feels the risk of not
winning outweighs the possible feedback, they should think long and
hard about whether they want to compete, and if they decide not to,
that's really okay.

> Another fact that I would like to point out is that sometimes,
> Fredetta deserves the award - just because an author is well know does
> not meen that she/he can not write well (I could give examples but I
> am sure that everyone can think of someon their own).
>

Granted -- but if Fredetta wins the award it should be *because* she's
a better author than Fred. The fact that she's so insanely popular
should be in some sense coincidental.

There's one thing that people haven't mentioned (at least that I've
seen), and that's the problem of Fredetta's vote getting split. Lets
say Fred writes a story for The Silm, and that's it. Therefore all of
Fred's author votes will de facto be in that one category. Fred, on the
other hand, is entered into seven different author categgories -- he
wrote poems and drabbles in Men, stories and poems in Humor, and
drabbles in Elves, The Hobbit, and Romance. So if I want to write a
review for Fred and I don't want this just to be a copy-and-paste job,
then it will have to be for one of seven categories. It's very possible
that Fred might get more votes but less per category than Fredita. The
popularity thing really cuts both ways.

And I'm afraid that's really all the steam I have tonight. Maybe with
tomorrow being Saturday I'll be able to make some more progress then.

Cheers,
Marta

Msg# 6730

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Kathy January 14, 2006 - 2:44:33 Topic ID# 6662
--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@e...
> wrote:
> <snip>
> But now I'm rambling. Sometimes the proposed changes hurt. Sometimes
> they're a bit scary. I know I don't want to poke my nose back in here
> in 5 years and not recognize the place. But I also have some amount
> of faith that because this worked in 2004, the LOTR fandom found out
> that such an awards program based on feedback can work and be
> pleasant and produce positive feelings, there will be enough people
> who value it around to keep it from being destroyed.

Hear hear! And thank you for giving the LOTR fandom such an awards
program.

Kathy

Msg# 6746

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 15, 2006 - 0:18:38 Topic ID# 6662
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kathy
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:44 AM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Re: What is the problem to which "reduce
> the points scale" is the answer?
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@e...
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > But now I'm rambling. Sometimes the proposed changes hurt.
> Sometimes
> > they're a bit scary. I know I don't want to poke my nose
> back in here
> > in 5 years and not recognize the place. But I also have
> some amount
> > of faith that because this worked in 2004, the LOTR fandom
> found out
> > that such an awards program based on feedback can work and
> be pleasant
> > and produce positive feelings, there will be enough people
> who value
> > it around to keep it from being destroyed.
>
> Hear hear! And thank you for giving the LOTR fandom such an
> awards program.
>
> Kathy

Thank you, Kathy and you're welcome. I may have changed from whale to
coelecanth in the DS9 pond but I may forever remain a perch in the huge sea
of LOTR. If so, maybe these MEFAs can be my contribution that outlasts me.
Oswiecim may be that in DS9. MEFAs may be that in LOTR-dom.

--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

Msg# 6748

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is the a Posted by Marta Layton January 15, 2006 - 11:47:30 Topic ID# 6662
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:44:20 -0000
> From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale" is
> the answer?
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "Ainaechoiriel" <mefaadmin@e...
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> But now I'm rambling. Sometimes the proposed changes hurt. Sometimes
>> they're a bit scary. I know I don't want to poke my nose back in here
>> in 5 years and not recognize the place. But I also have some amount
>> of faith that because this worked in 2004, the LOTR fandom found out
>> that such an awards program based on feedback can work and be
>> pleasant and produce positive feelings, there will be enough people
>> who value it around to keep it from being destroyed.
>
> Hear hear!

Hear what? ;-) (Sorry, can never resist working in my favourite _The
Hobbit_ reference.

> And thank you for giving the LOTR fandom such an awards
> program.
>

What she swaid. Ainae, I really am thankful for all you did.

Marta