Yahoo Forum Archive

-----Original Message-----
From: Ainaechoiriel [mailto:mefaadmin@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:42 PM
To: 'MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [MEFAwards] What is the problem to which "reduce the points
scale"is the answer?

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
>
>
>
>
>