Yahoo Forum Archive

>

> Message: 21
> Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:08:14 -0000
> From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters (general reply)
>
> <snip>
> 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 countas 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 revieweven 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&?
>

On 1/12/06, Marta Layton <melayton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> I'm trying to catch up on some posts where I think the points made
> haven't already been resolved as far as I can tell.
>
> > Message: 21
> > Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:08:14 -0000
> > From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net>
> > Subject: Re: points and various voting matters (general reply)
> >
> > <snip>
> > More good pointsýI 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 countýas 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 reviewýeven if the points were evenly spacedý
> > 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.
> >
>
> Yes, this was the incentive behind proposing a 5-point spread. Actually
> in effect it gives another point to each review worth an odd number of
> points, but this is definitely most noticeable with short reviews like
> 1-pointers.
>
> > The current 10-point spread IS weighted, as Marta recently pointed
> > outýbut 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 tweaksý?
> >
>
> I think you're right about this. So the question now becomes, how
> weighted do we want this to be? I'll try to address that more fully
> when I get through the messages still in my inbox.
>
> Thanks,
> Marta
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "rabidsamfan" <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters (Kathy)


We need to not lose sight of the value of long reviews in the process. As
the discussion coming off of Marigold's comments in another thread reminded
me, not every reader is going to read or review every story in a
subcategory, either because of popularity of authors or the lengths of the
different stories. A good long review for a story which has had fewer
readers can give some balance to a lot of short reviews for a story which is
more widely known.

Since one of my "find a story" strategies was to look for stories which
hadn't gotten any reviews yet, I know I tended to leave reviews which were a
lot more effusive for the ones I found that way which were unnoticed gems.

We also need to not lose sight of another problem. In discussions about
weighting the system towards shorter reviews, there's been an implication
that longer reviews are puffed up. I don't think that's true in the large
sense. Adding a word here or there to nudge a review to the next level is
not the same as unthinking verbosity. The long reviews I read at the MEFAs
were usually wonderful -- quite on the same level as the professional
reviews I read every day as a librarian -- and created with the same kind of
effort that it takes to craft a great story or essay. Those were the kinds
of reviews which prompted me to want to know which other stories that
reviewer had recommended, and I'd hate to see them devalued.

:: I think that I may have been the first to mention adding to my reviews
and then feeling that they did not seem as sincere. I can be extremely
verbose in reviews (or replies) as anyone can tell you. I've been known to
wax philosophical and write reviews longer than the stories or chapters that
inspired them, LOL! But occasionally a story moves me so much that my
response is actually shorter, with less thought, more emotional. To have to
add to a response like that did feel a bit like padding. Now, maybe that's
just me, and the way I review--in which case it's not a problem for anyone
else, and I apologize for opening the can of worms in the first place--I'll
just have to deal with it.

:: Perhaps a kind of curve in giving weight to reviews, with a bit extra at
the low end and a bit extra at the high end, with the spread more consistent
in the middle, kind of like the old grading curve teachers used to use? I
don't know. Anyway, as I said, if I'm the only one with the problem, just
let me blather.

Dreamflower
(Barbara)

On 1/12/06, aelfwina@cableone.net <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rabidsamfan" <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters (Kathy)
>
>
> We need to not lose sight of the value of long reviews in the process. As
> the discussion coming off of Marigold's comments in another thread
> reminded
> me, not every reader is going to read or review every story in a
> subcategory, either because of popularity of authors or the lengths of the
> different stories. A good long review for a story which has had fewer
> readers can give some balance to a lot of short reviews for a story which
> is
> more widely known.
>
> Since one of my "find a story" strategies was to look for stories which
> hadn't gotten any reviews yet, I know I tended to leave reviews which were
> a
> lot more effusive for the ones I found that way which were unnoticed gems.
>
> We also need to not lose sight of another problem. In discussions about
> weighting the system towards shorter reviews, there's been an implication
> that longer reviews are puffed up. I don't think that's true in the large
> sense. Adding a word here or there to nudge a review to the next level is
> not the same as unthinking verbosity. The long reviews I read at the
> MEFAs
> were usually wonderful -- quite on the same level as the professional
> reviews I read every day as a librarian -- and created with the same kind
> of
> effort that it takes to craft a great story or essay. Those were the
> kinds
> of reviews which prompted me to want to know which other stories that
> reviewer had recommended, and I'd hate to see them devalued.
>
> :: I think that I may have been the first to mention adding to my reviews
> and then feeling that they did not seem as sincere. I can be extremely
> verbose in reviews (or replies) as anyone can tell you. I've been known to
>
> wax philosophical and write reviews longer than the stories or chapters
> that
> inspired them, LOL! But occasionally a story moves me so much that my
> response is actually shorter, with less thought, more emotional. To have
> to
> add to a response like that did feel a bit like padding. Now, maybe
> that's
> just me, and the way I review--in which case it's not a problem for anyone
>
> else, and I apologize for opening the can of worms in the first
> place--I'll
> just have to deal with it.
>
> :: Perhaps a kind of curve in giving weight to reviews, with a bit extra
> at
> the low end and a bit extra at the high end, with the spread more
> consistent
> in the middle, kind of like the old grading curve teachers used to use? I
>
> don't know. Anyway, as I said, if I'm the only one with the problem, just
>
> let me blather.
>
> Dreamflower
> (Barbara)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> - Visit your group "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
> on the web.
>
> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "rabidsamfan" <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters (Kathy)


> *grinning*
>
> And you're one of the reviewers I most admired for your skills too,
> Dreamflower! Ah, another illusion shattered...
>
> No, seriously, whether you felt like you were "padding" or not, you still
> gave a great deal of thought to the words you chose to expand the review,
> and that's not a bad thing.
>
::*blushes* Thanks. I *do* like to give some thought to these things. And I
suppose it's not all that bad--we edit stories all the time. Yet for some
reason, I always feel that in a review, my first gut response is the most
sincere, and sometimes it's long and sometimes it's short. And trying to get
the word count just so seems harder than trying to do that for a drabble.
Go figure.
Dreamflower

>
> On 1/12/06, aelfwina@cableone.net <aelfwina@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "rabidsamfan" <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
>> To: <MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters (Kathy)
>>
>>
>> We need to not lose sight of the value of long reviews in the process.
>> As
>> the discussion coming off of Marigold's comments in another thread
>> reminded
>> me, not every reader is going to read or review every story in a
>> subcategory, either because of popularity of authors or the lengths of
>> the
>> different stories. A good long review for a story which has had fewer
>> readers can give some balance to a lot of short reviews for a story which
>> is
>> more widely known.
>>
>> Since one of my "find a story" strategies was to look for stories which
>> hadn't gotten any reviews yet, I know I tended to leave reviews which
>> were
>> a
>> lot more effusive for the ones I found that way which were unnoticed
>> gems.
>>
>> We also need to not lose sight of another problem. In discussions about
>> weighting the system towards shorter reviews, there's been an implication
>> that longer reviews are puffed up. I don't think that's true in the
>> large
>> sense. Adding a word here or there to nudge a review to the next level
>> is
>> not the same as unthinking verbosity. The long reviews I read at the
>> MEFAs
>> were usually wonderful -- quite on the same level as the professional
>> reviews I read every day as a librarian -- and created with the same kind
>> of
>> effort that it takes to craft a great story or essay. Those were the
>> kinds
>> of reviews which prompted me to want to know which other stories that
>> reviewer had recommended, and I'd hate to see them devalued.
>>
>> :: I think that I may have been the first to mention adding to my reviews
>> and then feeling that they did not seem as sincere. I can be extremely
>> verbose in reviews (or replies) as anyone can tell you. I've been known
>> to
>>
>> wax philosophical and write reviews longer than the stories or chapters
>> that
>> inspired them, LOL! But occasionally a story moves me so much that my
>> response is actually shorter, with less thought, more emotional. To have
>> to
>> add to a response like that did feel a bit like padding. Now, maybe
>> that's
>> just me, and the way I review--in which case it's not a problem for
>> anyone
>>
>> else, and I apologize for opening the can of worms in the first
>> place--I'll
>> just have to deal with it.
>>
>> :: Perhaps a kind of curve in giving weight to reviews, with a bit extra
>> at
>> the low end and a bit extra at the high end, with the spread more
>> consistent
>> in the middle, kind of like the old grading curve teachers used to use?
>> I
>>
>> don't know. Anyway, as I said, if I'm the only one with the problem,
>> just
>>
>> let me blather.
>>
>> Dreamflower
>> (Barbara)
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>
>>
>> - Visit your group
>> "MEFAwards<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MEFAwards>"
>> on the web.
>>
>> - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>
>> MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<MEFAwards-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>
>> - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> We need to not lose sight of the value of long reviews in the

> the discussion coming off of Marigold's comments in another thread

> me, not every reader is going to read or review every story in a
> subcategory, either because of popularity of authors or the lengths

> different stories. A good long review for a story which has had

> readers can give some balance to a lot of short reviews for a story

> more widely known.
>
> Since one of my "find a story" strategies was to look for stories

> hadn't gotten any reviews yet, I know I tended to leave reviews

> lot more effusive for the ones I found that way which were

>
> We also need to not lose sight of another problem. In discussions

> weighting the system towards shorter reviews, there's been an

> that longer reviews are puffed up. I don't think that's true in

> sense. Adding a word here or there to nudge a review to the next

> not the same as unthinking verbosity. The long reviews I read at

> were usually wonderful -- quite on the same level as the

> reviews I read every day as a librarian -- and created with the

> effort that it takes to craft a great story or essay. Those were

> of reviews which prompted me to want to know which other stories

> reviewer had recommended, and I'd hate to see them devalued.
>
>
> On 1/12/06, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > I'm trying to catch up on some posts where I think the points made
> > haven't already been resolved as far as I can tell.
> >
> > > Message: 21
> > > Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:08:14 -0000
> > > From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...>
> > > Subject: Re: points and various voting matters (general reply)
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > More good points…I guess this is why I feel like I could live

> > > any of the options on the table: 5-point spread, 10-point

> > > character count—as long as it was weighted in some way. Math

> > > my strong suit, but to me a 5-point spread would inherently

> > > weight to a 1-point review—even if the points were evenly

> > > because 1 out of 5 is worth more than 1 out of 10. But I can

> > > understand the many objections to a lower spread, such as less
> > > ability to gradate one's reviews, or not enough incentive to

> > > long reviews.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, this was the incentive behind proposing a 5-point spread.

> > in effect it gives another point to each review worth an odd

> > points, but this is definitely most noticeable with short reviews

> > 1-pointers.
> >
> > > The current 10-point spread IS weighted, as Marta recently

> > > out…but not very much. Maybe the compromise here is to stick

> > > it, but to increase the weight for lower-point reviews. I

> > > mind a weighted character count system either, but as some in

> > > group seem strongly opposed to it, it might be best to stick as
> > > closely as possibly to the current system, with a few tweaks…?
> > >
> >
> > I think you're right about this. So the question now becomes, how
> > weighted do we want this to be? I'll try to address that more

> > when I get through the messages still in my inbox.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marta
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>
> There seems to be a widely held perception that long reviews are
> being criticized or devalued by the idea of giving more weight to
> short reviews (weight being defined as how many characters are needed
> to reach a certain points threshold) than they would receive in an
> even points spread. However, I don't think that was the intent when
> the idea was first proposed.
>
> Here's what Marta said in her initial post on the subject on Jan. 1:
>
> "First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and so
> feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the
> points
> they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at a lower
> level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively means that
> those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight."
>
> I thought the concern she raised seemed reasonable at the time, and I
> still do. But since then many objections have been raised to the
> initial proposed solutionýa 5-point spreadýand they are also valid
> concerns. So now that it seems settled that we are staying with the
> 10-point scoring system, the remaining question seems to be simply
> whether the initial issue Marta raised is one that we should address
> to a greater (or lesser) degree than the current system does. It's
> already looking like this question may be as debatable as the 5-pt.
> vs. 10-pt. vs. character count question.
>
> As I understand the facts, the 2005 MEFAs gave slightly more weight
> to short reviews than they otherwise would have received in a
> completely even point spread. I'm not sure why this was done, as it
> happened before I became involved with the MEFAs. According to
> Anthony, the 2004 MEFAs gave even *more* weight to the short reviews,
> so there seems to have been a decision to move away from that, but
> again, I don't know why.
>
> In the interests of moving the discussion along, to Rabidsamfan and
> anyone else who is concerned about long reviews being devalued, I put
> the question directly: are you opposed to *any* kind of weighting
> that allows short reviews to count for more than they would if the
> points were evenly distributed? If not, what level of weighting are
> you comfortable with: the current system? Something more? Or
> something less? I don't mean that to sound confrontational, I'd just
> like to know where people stand on this so we can come to a decision
> soon.
>
> Kathy (Inkling)

>
> <snip>
> Gosh, I hope that made sense!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kathy
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:27 PM
> To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MEFAwards] Weighty matters
>
> There seems to be a widely held perception that long reviews
> are being criticized or devalued by the idea of giving more
> weight to short reviews (weight being defined as how many
> characters are needed to reach a certain points threshold)
> than they would receive in an even points spread. However, I
> don't think that was the intent when the idea was first proposed.
>
> Here's what Marta said in her initial post on the subject on Jan. 1:
>
> "First, I think some people find it hard to write long
> reviews and so feel that even stories they really like they
> can't give them the points they're worth. I suggest that we
> have each review cap off at a lower level (say, five points
> instead of ten). This effectively means that those 1- and
> 2-point reviews have more weight."
>
> I thought the concern she raised seemed reasonable at the
> time, and I still do. But since then many objections have
> been raised to the initial proposed solution-a 5-point
> spread-and they are also valid concerns. So now that it
> seems settled that we are staying with the 10-point scoring
> system, the remaining question seems to be simply whether the
> initial issue Marta raised is one that we should address to a
> greater (or lesser) degree than the current system does.
> It's already looking like this question may be as debatable
> as the 5-pt.
> vs. 10-pt. vs. character count question.
>
> As I understand the facts, the 2005 MEFAs gave slightly more
> weight to short reviews than they otherwise would have
> received in a completely even point spread. I'm not sure why
> this was done, as it happened before I became involved with
> the MEFAs. According to Anthony, the 2004 MEFAs gave even
> *more* weight to the short reviews, so there seems to have
> been a decision to move away from that, but again, I don't know why.
>
> In the interests of moving the discussion along, to
> Rabidsamfan and anyone else who is concerned about long
> reviews being devalued, I put the question directly: are you
> opposed to *any* kind of weighting that allows short reviews
> to count for more than they would if the points were evenly
> distributed? If not, what level of weighting are you
> comfortable with: the current system? Something more? Or
> something less? I don't mean that to sound confrontational,
> I'd just like to know where people stand on this so we can
> come to a decision soon.
>
> Kathy (Inkling)
>
>
>
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@v...>
> wrote:
> >
> > We need to not lose sight of the value of long reviews in the
> process. As
> > the discussion coming off of Marigold's comments in another thread
> reminded
> > me, not every reader is going to read or review every story in a
> > subcategory, either because of popularity of authors or the lengths
> of the
> > different stories. A good long review for a story which has had
> fewer
> > readers can give some balance to a lot of short reviews for a story
> which is
> > more widely known.
> >
> > Since one of my "find a story" strategies was to look for stories
> which
> > hadn't gotten any reviews yet, I know I tended to leave reviews
> which were a
> > lot more effusive for the ones I found that way which were
> unnoticed gems.
> >
> > We also need to not lose sight of another problem. In discussions
> about
> > weighting the system towards shorter reviews, there's been an
> implication
> > that longer reviews are puffed up. I don't think that's true in
> the large
> > sense. Adding a word here or there to nudge a review to the next
> level is
> > not the same as unthinking verbosity. The long reviews I read at
> the MEFAs
> > were usually wonderful -- quite on the same level as the
> professional
> > reviews I read every day as a librarian -- and created with the
> same kind of
> > effort that it takes to craft a great story or essay. Those were
> the kinds
> > of reviews which prompted me to want to know which other stories
> that
> > reviewer had recommended, and I'd hate to see them devalued.
> >
> >
> > On 1/12/06, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm trying to catch up on some posts where I think the
> points made
> > > haven't already been resolved as far as I can tell.
> > >
> > > > Message: 21
> > > > Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:08:14 -0000
> > > > From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...>
> > > > Subject: Re: points and various voting matters (general reply)
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, this was the incentive behind proposing a 5-point spread.
> Actually
> > > in effect it gives another point to each review worth an odd
> number of
> > > points, but this is definitely most noticeable with short reviews
> like
> > > 1-pointers.
> > >
> > > > 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.?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think you're right about this. So the question now becomes, how
> > > weighted do we want this to be? I'll try to address that more
> fully
> > > when I get through the messages still in my inbox.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Marta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> Just to clarify about the change from 2004 to 2005, if I remember

>
> 1) 2004 was copied directly from the Alt.StarTrek.Creative Awards'

> 2) In the PM after the 2004 some noted that the spread was

> oddly left out numbers. It was voted on, I think, and it was evened

> Not necessarily not-weighted, but less funky break-off points.
>
> I don't think the value of short vs. long really came up so much.
>
> --Ainaechoiriel
> MEFA Admin and Founder
>
> "This evil cannot be concealed by the power of the Elves," Elrond

> 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: Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:27 PM
> > To: MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MEFAwards] Weighty matters
> >
> > There seems to be a widely held perception that long reviews
> > are being criticized or devalued by the idea of giving more
> > weight to short reviews (weight being defined as how many
> > characters are needed to reach a certain points threshold)
> > than they would receive in an even points spread. However, I
> > don't think that was the intent when the idea was first proposed.
> >
> > Here's what Marta said in her initial post on the subject on Jan.

> >
> > "First, I think some people find it hard to write long
> > reviews and so feel that even stories they really like they
> > can't give them the points they're worth. I suggest that we
> > have each review cap off at a lower level (say, five points
> > instead of ten). This effectively means that those 1- and
> > 2-point reviews have more weight."
> >
> > I thought the concern she raised seemed reasonable at the
> > time, and I still do. But since then many objections have
> > been raised to the initial proposed solution-a 5-point
> > spread-and they are also valid concerns. So now that it
> > seems settled that we are staying with the 10-point scoring
> > system, the remaining question seems to be simply whether the
> > initial issue Marta raised is one that we should address to a
> > greater (or lesser) degree than the current system does.
> > It's already looking like this question may be as debatable
> > as the 5-pt.
> > vs. 10-pt. vs. character count question.
> >
> > As I understand the facts, the 2005 MEFAs gave slightly more
> > weight to short reviews than they otherwise would have
> > received in a completely even point spread. I'm not sure why
> > this was done, as it happened before I became involved with
> > the MEFAs. According to Anthony, the 2004 MEFAs gave even
> > *more* weight to the short reviews, so there seems to have
> > been a decision to move away from that, but again, I don't know

> >
> > In the interests of moving the discussion along, to
> > Rabidsamfan and anyone else who is concerned about long
> > reviews being devalued, I put the question directly: are you
> > opposed to *any* kind of weighting that allows short reviews
> > to count for more than they would if the points were evenly
> > distributed? If not, what level of weighting are you
> > comfortable with: the current system? Something more? Or
> > something less? I don't mean that to sound confrontational,
> > I'd just like to know where people stand on this so we can
> > come to a decision soon.
> >
> > Kathy (Inkling)
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@v...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > We need to not lose sight of the value of long reviews in the
> > process. As
> > > the discussion coming off of Marigold's comments in another

> > reminded
> > > me, not every reader is going to read or review every story in

> > > subcategory, either because of popularity of authors or the

> > of the
> > > different stories. A good long review for a story which has had
> > fewer
> > > readers can give some balance to a lot of short reviews for a

> > which is
> > > more widely known.
> > >
> > > Since one of my "find a story" strategies was to look for

> > which
> > > hadn't gotten any reviews yet, I know I tended to leave reviews
> > which were a
> > > lot more effusive for the ones I found that way which were
> > unnoticed gems.
> > >
> > > We also need to not lose sight of another problem. In

> > about
> > > weighting the system towards shorter reviews, there's been an
> > implication
> > > that longer reviews are puffed up. I don't think that's true in
> > the large
> > > sense. Adding a word here or there to nudge a review to the

> > level is
> > > not the same as unthinking verbosity. The long reviews I read

> > the MEFAs
> > > were usually wonderful -- quite on the same level as the
> > professional
> > > reviews I read every day as a librarian -- and created with the
> > same kind of
> > > effort that it takes to craft a great story or essay. Those

> > the kinds
> > > of reviews which prompted me to want to know which other stories
> > that
> > > reviewer had recommended, and I'd hate to see them devalued.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/12/06, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to catch up on some posts where I think the
> > points made
> > > > haven't already been resolved as far as I can tell.
> > > >
> > > > > Message: 21
> > > > > Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:08:14 -0000
> > > > > From: "Kathy" <inkling-tcbs@s...>
> > > > > Subject: Re: points and various voting matters (general

> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > More good points.I guess this is why I feel like I could

> > 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.

> > 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

> > also
> > > > > understand the many objections to a lower spread, such as

> > > > > ability to gradate one's reviews, or not enough incentive to
> > write
> > > > > long reviews.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this was the incentive behind proposing a 5-point

> > Actually
> > > > in effect it gives another point to each review worth an odd
> > number of
> > > > points, but this is definitely most noticeable with short

> > like
> > > > 1-pointers.
> > > >
> > > > > The current 10-point spread IS weighted, as Marta recently
> > pointed
> > > > > out.but not very much. Maybe the compromise here is to

> > with
> > > > > it, but to increase the weight for lower-point reviews. I
> > wouldn't
> > > > > mind a weighted character count system either, but as some

> > the
> > > > > group seem strongly opposed to it, it might be best to

> > > > > closely as possibly to the current system, with a few

> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think you're right about this. So the question now becomes,

> > > > weighted do we want this to be? I'll try to address that more
> > fully
> > > > when I get through the messages still in my inbox.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Marta
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:17:19 -0500
> From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Weighty matters
>
> On 1/12/06, Kathy <inkling-tcbs@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> There seems to be a widely held perception that long reviews are
>> being criticized or devalued by the idea of giving more weight to
>> short reviews (weight being defined as how many characters are needed
>> to reach a certain points threshold) than they would receive in an
>> even points spread. However, I don't think that was the intent when
>> the idea was first proposed.
>>
>> Here's what Marta said in her initial post on the subject on Jan. 1:
>>
>> "First, I think some people find it hard to write long reviews and so
>> feel that even stories they really like they can't give them the
>> points
>> they're worth. I suggest that we have each review cap off at a lower
>> level (say, five points instead of ten). This effectively means that
>> those 1- and 2-point reviews have more weight."
>>
>> I thought the concern she raised seemed reasonable at the time, and I
>> still do. But since then many objections have been raised to the
>> initial proposed solution—a 5-point spread—and they are also valid
>> concerns. So now that it seems settled that we are staying with the
>> 10-point scoring system, the remaining question seems to be simply
>> whether the initial issue Marta raised is one that we should address
>> to a greater (or lesser) degree than the current system does. It's
>> already looking like this question may be as debatable as the 5-pt.
>> vs. 10-pt. vs. character count question.
>>
>> As I understand the facts, the 2005 MEFAs gave slightly more weight
>> to short reviews than they otherwise would have received in a
>> completely even point spread. I'm not sure why this was done, as it
>> happened before I became involved with the MEFAs. According to
>> Anthony, the 2004 MEFAs gave even *more* weight to the short reviews,
>> so there seems to have been a decision to move away from that, but
>> again, I don't know why.
>>
>> In the interests of moving the discussion along, to Rabidsamfan and
>> anyone else who is concerned about long reviews being devalued, I put
>> the question directly: are you opposed to *any* kind of weighting
>> that allows short reviews to count for more than they would if the
>> points were evenly distributed? If not, what level of weighting are
>> you comfortable with: the current system? Something more? Or
>> something less? I don't mean that to sound confrontational, I'd just
>> like to know where people stand on this so we can come to a decision
>> soon.
>>
>> Kathy (Inkling)
>
>
>
> I can live quite happily with the 2005 system. In 2004, I suspect
> that some
> reviews were edited into shreds to keep them at the "one point" level,
> since
> without that very low number (20) as a cutoff point, no one wrote
> anything
> quite that short in 2005.
>
> I'm not opposed to the idea of weighting the system towards shorter
> reviews,
> but my reasoning is probably not the same as most folks, which is why
> I like
> straight or weighted character counts and was intrigued with Anthony's
> fifty
> point system. Within a subcategory, when I'm in "thinking about
> subcategories" mode, what I want to do is set the stories into
> approximate
> order by how well I liked them. It's easier to do that if it's not a
> big
> step from one "place" to another.
>
> For people who are trying to get a lot of stories read in short order,
> or
> who aren't comfortable writing pages of review for a drabble, having
> the
> steps "smaller" at the lower end of the scale makes a certain amount of
> sense. If it were my druthers, there wouldn't be a cutoff at the top
> of the
> scale, but the steps would be higher to go from 10 to 11 than they
> were to
> go from 1 to 2.
>
> Gosh, I hope that made sense!
>