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.


Msg# 6724

FW: [MEFAwards] What is the problem to which "reduce the points sca Posted by Ainaechoiriel January 13, 2006 - 1:22:00 Topic ID# 6724
-----Original Message-----
From: Ainaechoiriel []
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:42 PM
To: ''
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.

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. The Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:39 AM
> To:
> 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" <> 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
> Marigold's Recommendations Page
> Marigold's Live Journal
> Tales of The Red Book
> 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