Re: [MEFAwards] Post-Mortem Topic #1: Number of Nominations
- I like a combination of 1 and 4 (Limiting the total number of nominations and
the number of nominations per week/time period). I like spreading the
nominations out over the whole nominating season, because it will give a wider
group of people the chance to nominate stories too. (Like instead of me
nominating all of Author A's stories in the first week, if I'm limited, then it
might allow/encourage someone new to the program to nominate some of A's
I think entering a vote before the nomination can be processed might be too
intimidating to newcomers to the program, and that will put a barrier up as far
as encouraging people to get involved. This process is already different enough
that it causes people to shy away, I'd hate to put another roadblock in the
I also sort of like nominating stories written in the last year...BUT...I do
think that would cut out a lot of deserving stories. I'm not comfortable with
the thought that just because a story was written 2 years ago, it doesn't
deserve some recognition. (On the other hand, if there are stories that were
written 3 or 4 years ago, you run the risk of the author being out of the
fandom and it doesn't seem fair to keep giving them awards when they are not
So, my initial reaction is to say 1 and 4. :D
--- Marta <melayton@...> wrote:
> 1. Limit the number of nominations, period. Once we reach this cap no more
> are allowed.
> 2. Limit the number of nominations per person.
> 3. Limit the number of nominations in a time period.
> 4. Limit the number of nominations in a time period per person. (I.e., you
> can nominate, a
> certain number of pieces per week.)
> 5. Limit nominations to pieces written this year.
> 6. Require the nominator to enter a vote for the story before the nomination
> can be
- Hi Chris,
On 3 Nov 2005, at 20:56, Chris Grzonka wrote:
> > Because everyone has been
> > reading them all year there is no need for a reading season. We
> added that
> > the first year of the MEFAs to give people a chance to read stories
> > to archives they did not usually read.
> I knew a lot of the nominated stories, but to write a review I still
> had to
> read at least part of it again.
I can understand that. I'm not sure if something's wrong with my memory
;-) but I can't remember stories properly either! I think a lot of
people try to re-read at least part of a story. Or at least I hope I'm
not alone in that!
So the period of the awards that was previously called reading season
and voting season will be at least as long as it is now. It will
probably get just a bit longer if we decide to shorten nomination
season. I think that calling the whole thing voting season would make
it more clear that people can vote for stories during what was formerly
called reading season.
> I didn't want to go back to the site where
> the story is archived and read my original review to some of the
> stories to
> just repost it again. I thought it unfair to the author. But to write
> something new I still had to read the story again. Unless I betaed a
> than I knew it by heart<g>. So, no matter that I knew stories I still
> time to read.
Thanks for that! I received a few of your reviews and really loved the
new feedback. As I'm awful about leaving feedback at the original
archives this isn't such a point for me.
This is something that came up in a lot of reviews. People would say
they were copying (or adapting) their review from such-and-such a
sight, and I understand the need to get as many reviews done. I'm not
saying people shouldn't be allowed to do this - but that I do enjoy the
new reviews as well.
> > In 2004 the volunteers had to copy each vote into
> > Word, do a character count (using Word's word count feature), look
> at a
> > table to see how many points that character count got, and record
> > information in an Excel document. Lots of behind-the-scenes work.
> This sounds very cumbersome. Thanks to Anthony for the nifty web
Oh yes! A series of family emergencies meant I couldn't participate in
the voting part of last year, but from what I've heard it was very work
intensive. That's why it took two weeks. (Another season that perhaps
we need to re-evaluate - we certainly needed two weeks to check and
compute results originally, even if we don't now.)
Anyway, I've heard the stories... and YES. I cannot say it enough.
Thank you, Anthony.
"Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our greatest fear is
that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness
that most frightens us. [...] As we let our own light shine, we
unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."