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# 6684

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is the an Posted by MarigoldCotton@aol.com January 10, 2006 - 0:39:24 Topic ID# 6684
I was going to write my lengthy opinion of this issue, but Thundera did it for me! I agre wholeheartedly with what she says here, and with her proposals.

I strongly disagree with a 5 pt minimum review. I work very hard on my reviews because it is a way that I can pay back the author for a story that I enjoyed. The author works hard to write the story in the first place, I should be willing to put the effort in, and write a review touching on all of the things that I liked about the story. Some reviews might be very long, some of moderate length, but I write what I feel.

Yes, these are the Feel Good Awards, but in my opinion, this idea to raise the worth of a minimum vote is rather defeating the whole point of giving awards to the stories that folks like the best, and take the time to write the longest reviews for.

I acknowledge that at the end of Voting Season this year that I was rushing, and not able to write reviews of the length I wanted for every story that I had hoped to. I agree with Thundera though that we will have far fewer stories this year. We have already acted to ensure that. So this next Awards I should be able to write the full reviews that I think a story deserves.

And I think too that voters have to take responsibility for their votes - I read every story in a given category, and wrote my reviews based on my enjoyment of each story in that category. I felt that that way I was being fair to all of the authors in the category. I wasn't just picking out Author X that I know, and reviewing their story without reading the stories that were entered alongside hers. I didn't go to a category, pick out only authors and stories that I knew, and write reviews only for them. And I finished a category before I went to the next one, I didn't skip through the categories looking for authors I knew so that I could vote for them. That practice seems to be hinted at in some of these many e-mails, and I hope that is not the case.

If it *is* the case, changing the point system in the way that had been suggested will just perpetuate that, and load the voting in favour of those very authors.

I would definitely go along with the scale that Thundera suggests:

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

I hope that was coherent...I worked all night and just got home and I am knackered!

Marigold



>-- "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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Marigold's Red Book
http://marigold.tolkienshire.com

Marigold's Recommendations Page
http://www.geocities.com/marigoldsrecommendations/

Marigold's Live Journal
http://www.livejournal.com/users/marigoldg/

Tales of The Red Book
http://www.livejournal.com/users/talesofredbook/




There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty forever beyond its reach.
>
>Sam, in Mordor, RoTK

Msg# 6691

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is the an Posted by rabidsamfan January 10, 2006 - 10:23:03 Topic ID# 6684
On 1/10/06, MarigoldCotton@aol.com <MarigoldCotton@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> And I think too that voters have to take responsibility for their votes -
> I read every story in a given category, and wrote my reviews based on my
> enjoyment of each story in that category. I felt that that way I was being
> fair to all of the authors in the category. I wasn't just picking out Author
> X that I know, and reviewing their story without reading the stories that
> were entered alongside hers. I didn't go to a category, pick out only
> authors and stories that I knew, and write reviews only for them. And I
> finished a category before I went to the next one, I didn't skip through the
> categories looking for authors I knew so that I could vote for them. That
> practice seems to be hinted at in some of these many e-mails, and I hope
> that is not the case.



*raises hand sheepishly*

Guilty as charged. I looked for stories with Sam first, and then Aragorn,
and then at least one of the stories by anyone who had nominated or reviewed
one of mine, and then drabbles and then other stories that a reviewer who
liked the things I liked liked and then... well, I didn't go by category
anyway. Although I did make a few stabs at going through subcategories near
the end of voting season to try catch up the remaining stories in any area
where I had read most of them. Part of the reason was that, as a newbie, I
wasn't entirely sure at first which stories were in direct competition with
each other, and later it was because I kept discovering stuff I'd never even
knew existed and was leaping from clue to clue to clue and having fun.

It's one of the reasons why I'd prefer a straight character count, or only
mildly weighted one -- because I think that if the really long
reviews don't have a good bit of influence then we've got all the problems
of a popularity contest. And there's another factor at work besides the
name of the author! Because we don't split categories by length, except for
drabbles, short stories and epics can be in direct competition, and I think
short stories and vignettes drew more of the peripatetic folks like me, even
if we did tend to write shorter reviews for them than the epics. I don't
think we can enforce "read the whole category" on the reviewers, so giving
weight to the longer reviews balances things out.

It looks like we're going to stick with this year's system, and I can live
with that...


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

Msg# 6693

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is the an Posted by Chris Grzonka January 10, 2006 - 17:56:31 Topic ID# 6684
Marigold wrote:

>
> And I think too that voters have to take responsibility for their
> votes - I read every story in a given category, and wrote my
> reviews based on my enjoyment of each story in that category. I
> felt that that way I was being fair to all of the authors in the
> category. I wasn't just picking out Author X that I know, and
> reviewing their story without reading the stories that were
> entered alongside hers. I didn't go to a category, pick out only
> authors and stories that I knew, and write reviews only for them.
> And I finished a category before I went to the next one, I didn't
> skip through the categories looking for authors I knew so that I
> could vote for them. That practice seems to be hinted at in some
> of these many e-mails, and I hope that is not the case.

If you have the feeling as a reviewer I have to read all the stories in a
category to write reviews, than I have to bow out of this award. My time is
very limited as it is, and last year there were some RL issues which cut
even more into my time. What you describe is an ideal world. I would love to
do what you suggest, but I learned very quickly that is not going to happen.
Since I wanted to get to know new stories, I basically skipped most stories
I already knew with some exceptions and read stories which seemed
interesting, but which I hadn't read before. I felt kind of guilty for not
voting on some of my favorite stories, but I hoped the authors were known
enough to garner reviews from others.

I think Laura had the right idea. If we manage to cut down on nominated
stories, the chances are bigger that I can read all the stories in a
category and write reviews for them.

Chris

Msg# 6720

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is the an Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 12, 2006 - 22:48:23 Topic ID# 6684
I think it's great that you read every story in a category, but it's not a
requirement. I don't think we can expect anyone to read all 1200 stories.
The idea is you read the stories you want to read. Plain and simple. If the
summary doesn't get me, I probably won't read a story unless I have extra
time on my hands.

--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 MarigoldCotton@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:39 AM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] What is the problem to which "reduce
> the points scale"is the answer?
>
> I was going to write my lengthy opinion of this issue, but
> Thundera did it for me! I agre wholeheartedly with what she
> says here, and with her proposals.
>
> I strongly disagree with a 5 pt minimum review. I work very
> hard on my reviews because it is a way that I can pay back
> the author for a story that I enjoyed. The author works hard
> to write the story in the first place, I should be willing to
> put the effort in, and write a review touching on all of the
> things that I liked about the story. Some reviews might be
> very long, some of moderate length, but I write what I feel.
>
> Yes, these are the Feel Good Awards, but in my opinion, this
> idea to raise the worth of a minimum vote is rather defeating
> the whole point of giving awards to the stories that folks
> like the best, and take the time to write the longest reviews for.
>
> I acknowledge that at the end of Voting Season this year that
> I was rushing, and not able to write reviews of the length I
> wanted for every story that I had hoped to. I agree with
> Thundera though that we will have far fewer stories this
> year. We have already acted to ensure that. So this next
> Awards I should be able to write the full reviews that I
> think a story deserves.
>
> And I think too that voters have to take responsibility for
> their votes - I read every story in a given category, and
> wrote my reviews based on my enjoyment of each story in that
> category. I felt that that way I was being fair to all of the
> authors in the category. I wasn't just picking out Author X
> that I know, and reviewing their story without reading the
> stories that were entered alongside hers. I didn't go to a
> category, pick out only authors and stories that I knew, and
> write reviews only for them. And I finished a category before
> I went to the next one, I didn't skip through the categories
> looking for authors I knew so that I could vote for them.
> That practice seems to be hinted at in some of these many
> e-mails, and I hope that is not the case.
>
> If it *is* the case, changing the point system in the way
> that had been suggested will just perpetuate that, and load
> the voting in favour of those very authors.
>
> I would definitely go along with the scale that Thundera suggests:
>
> >0-100 characters = 1 pt
> >101-250 characters = 3pts
> >251-450 ch = 5pts
> >451-700 = 7pts
> >701-1000 = 9pts
> >1001+ = 10 pts
>
> I hope that was coherent...I worked all night and just got
> home and I am knackered!
>
> Marigold
>
>
>
> >-- "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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Marigold's Red Book
> http://marigold.tolkienshire.com
>
> Marigold's Recommendations Page
> http://www.geocities.com/marigoldsrecommendations/
>
> Marigold's Live Journal
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/marigoldg/
>
> Tales of The Red Book
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/talesofredbook/
>
>
>
>
> There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up
> in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while.
> The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the
> forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft,
> clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the
> Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light
> and high beauty forever beyond its reach.
> >
> >Sam, in Mordor, RoTK
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Msg# 6732

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is the an Posted by Marta Layton January 14, 2006 - 9:10:33 Topic ID# 6684
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:56:20 -0500
> From: "Chris Grzonka" <grzonka@adelphia.net>
> Subject: RE: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is
> the answer?
>
> Marigold wrote:
>
>>
>> And I think too that voters have to take responsibility for their
>> votes - I read every story in a given category, and wrote my
>> reviews based on my enjoyment of each story in that category. I
>> felt that that way I was being fair to all of the authors in the
>> category. I wasn't just picking out Author X that I know, and
>> reviewing their story without reading the stories that were
>> entered alongside hers. I didn't go to a category, pick out only
>> authors and stories that I knew, and write reviews only for them.
>> And I finished a category before I went to the next one, I didn't
>> skip through the categories looking for authors I knew so that I
>> could vote for them. That practice seems to be hinted at in some
>> of these many e-mails, and I hope that is not the case.
>

I missed this email earlier somehow, and so I'm going to reply to this
part Chris quoted.

I think everyone has different reviewing styles. I haven't heard a lot
of people saying they seek out authors they are familiar with -- more
people saying they looked for their favourite characters or some other
element. Is this perfectly fair? No, but it's also not unreasonable
either. After all, stories about more popular characters ared more
likely to get reviews at a general archive, other factors being equal.

If a person is really scared that their story won't get a fair run the
best way to do this is to encourage other people who like to read that
kind of story to get involved with the MEFAs. I'm not talking about
recruiting your friends to come and vote for your stories, but rather
encouraging people who like stories about the Rohirrim to come and
review the stories that they like if you see the stories about the
Rohirrim aren't getting as much attention as you think they deserve.
Because those people are most likely to vote for stories about their
favourite characters and events first (just like everyone else). Though
of course I hope they won't stop there.

I've always encouraged people to try to review independent of the
sub-category a story is placed in. What I mean is, if you find a story
you like, write a review based on how good you thought it was. If you
liked it a lot, write a lot. If you only liked it a little, just write
a little.

I really don't want people to think they have to read a whole
sub-category to review at all. What if you've read an author in the
past (either through these awards or elsewhere) and you've read enough
of their work to know you won't like them? Or a story is about
characters you have no interest in, or for some other reason you
wouldn't read it in any other situation? To make people feel guilty for
not reading every story doesn't seem fair to them.

I see the concern I think you may be getting at, Marigold. If you read
every story in a sub-cat and decide not to review some because you
don't like them, and I just don't read all the stories and so don't
review them, those votes (or absence of votes, really) will count
exactly the same. But I think the solution to this is to get more
people voting, not to put more pressure on people who are really doing
the best they can.

Cheers,
Marta

Msg# 6733

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is the an Posted by Marta Layton January 14, 2006 - 9:20:20 Topic ID# 6684
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:56:20 -0500
> From: "Chris Grzonka" <grzonka@adelphia.net>
> Subject: RE: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is
> the answer?
>
> Marigold wrote:
>
> <snip>
> If you have the feeling as a reviewer I have to read all the stories
> in a
> category to write reviews, than I have to bow out of this award. My
> time is
> very limited as it is, and last year there were some RL issues which
> cut
> even more into my time. What you describe is an ideal world. I would
> love to
> do what you suggest, but I learned very quickly that is not going to
> happen.
> Since I wanted to get to know new stories, I basically skipped most
> stories
> I already knew with some exceptions and read stories which seemed
> interesting, but which I hadn't read before. I felt kind of guilty for
> not
> voting on some of my favorite stories, but I hoped the authors were
> known
> enough to garner reviews from others.
>
> I think Laura had the right idea. If we manage to cut down on nominated
> stories, the chances are bigger that I can read all the stories in a
> category and write reviews for them.
>
>
Hi Chris,

I agree with you here. I don't want to use guilt to get people to
review because these things are supposed to be fun. As I said in my
earlier email, I think the solution to this problem is getting more
people involvied in voters (even if it's only to do a handful of
stories); lowering the number of nominated stories will definitely
help, too.

As long as people aren't coming to the awards specifically to vote for
their friends (which I don't see happening in past years) I don't have
any real problems with people not reading a certain subcategory. Please
don't feel bad because you couldn't do this.

Cheers,
Marta

Msg# 6744

Re: What is the problem to which "reduce the points scale"is the an Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 15, 2006 - 0:07:23 Topic ID# 6684
Absolutemente! We have a high membership but a relatively low number of
reviewers. We can't pressure them to read 1200 stories. The more readers
and reviews we have the more likely every story WILL get read.

And BTW: the ration of members to poll partipators is appallingly low.
Those polls are our form of democracy here and those who don't participate
are letting a few decide everything for them. Thus we have the rule of the
"elite" (active) rather than the rule of the members (everyone).

If you'd prefer that every poll be unanimous (so lurkers can continue to
lurk), that can be arranged.

--Ainaechoiriel
MEFA Admin and Founder

"This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond said, "for
it is Windows-compatible, and freeware at that." --H.F.

http://gabrielle.sytes.net/mefa The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards

Blog: http://www.ainaechoiriel.blogspot.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marta Layton
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:17 AM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] RE: What is the problem to which
> "reduce the points scale"is the answer?
>
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:56:20 -0500
> > From: "Chris Grzonka" <grzonka@adelphia.net>
> > Subject: RE: What is the problem to which "reduce the
> points scale"is
> > the answer?
> >
> > Marigold wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And I think too that voters have to take responsibility for their
> >> votes - I read every story in a given category, and wrote
> my reviews
> >> based on my enjoyment of each story in that category. I felt that
> >> that way I was being fair to all of the authors in the category. I
> >> wasn't just picking out Author X that I know, and reviewing their
> >> story without reading the stories that were entered
> alongside hers. I
> >> didn't go to a category, pick out only authors and stories that I
> >> knew, and write reviews only for them.
> >> And I finished a category before I went to the next one, I didn't
> >> skip through the categories looking for authors I knew so that I
> >> could vote for them. That practice seems to be hinted at
> in some of
> >> these many e-mails, and I hope that is not the case.
> >
>
> I missed this email earlier somehow, and so I'm going to
> reply to this part Chris quoted.
>
> I think everyone has different reviewing styles. I haven't
> heard a lot of people saying they seek out authors they are
> familiar with -- more people saying they looked for their
> favourite characters or some other element. Is this perfectly
> fair? No, but it's also not unreasonable either. After all,
> stories about more popular characters ared more likely to get
> reviews at a general archive, other factors being equal.
>
> If a person is really scared that their story won't get a
> fair run the best way to do this is to encourage other people
> who like to read that kind of story to get involved with the
> MEFAs. I'm not talking about recruiting your friends to come
> and vote for your stories, but rather encouraging people who
> like stories about the Rohirrim to come and review the
> stories that they like if you see the stories about the
> Rohirrim aren't getting as much attention as you think they deserve.
> Because those people are most likely to vote for stories
> about their favourite characters and events first (just like
> everyone else). Though of course I hope they won't stop there.
>
> I've always encouraged people to try to review independent of
> the sub-category a story is placed in. What I mean is, if you
> find a story you like, write a review based on how good you
> thought it was. If you liked it a lot, write a lot. If you
> only liked it a little, just write a little.
>
> I really don't want people to think they have to read a whole
> sub-category to review at all. What if you've read an author
> in the past (either through these awards or elsewhere) and
> you've read enough of their work to know you won't like them?
> Or a story is about characters you have no interest in, or
> for some other reason you wouldn't read it in any other
> situation? To make people feel guilty for not reading every
> story doesn't seem fair to them.
>
> I see the concern I think you may be getting at, Marigold. If
> you read every story in a sub-cat and decide not to review
> some because you don't like them, and I just don't read all
> the stories and so don't review them, those votes (or absence
> of votes, really) will count exactly the same. But I think
> the solution to this is to get more people voting, not to put
> more pressure on people who are really doing the best they can.
>
> Cheers,
> Marta
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>