Yahoo Forum Archive

Since my hard drive filled up and these two messages refused to be sent,
I'm forwarding them again in the hopes that they will actually post this
time.

--Ainaechoiriel


-----Original Message-----
From: Ainaechoiriel [mailto:mefaadmin@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:09 PM
To: 'MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [MEFAwards] Weighty matters

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

1) 2004 was copied directly from the Alt.StarTrek.Creative Awards' scale
2) In the PM after the 2004 some noted that the spread was confusing and
oddly left out numbers. It was voted on, I think, and it was evened out.
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 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: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>