Re: [MEFAwards] Re: points and various voting matters
> Message: 4I think these are likely to overly favor a smaller subcategory if
> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:14:30 -0000
> From: "sulriel" <Sulriel@...>
> Subject: Re: points and various voting matters
>>>>>> Issue #2: honorable mentions. This year we awarded honorable
>>> to stories who scored within three points of second place. But it
>>> occurs to me this may not be the best system because the larger
>>> categories were a lot more competitive. Think about it, in a
>>> sub-category with five stories the top 60% of stories received first,
>>> second, or third place, whereas in a sub-category with ten stories
>>> the top 30% of stories received first, second, or third places. That
>>> means there will be more competition for the third place position in
>>> larger category, and *that* means that the third place story will
>>> likely have a higher score than in a smaller category - which means
>>> stiffer competition for those honorable mention positions.
> I'm ok with the HMs being within a count or percent of the total
> points because I feel like it rewards the 'likability' of the story
> and correctly conveys the reader's votes. If there are 5 stories in
> a cate or 20 .... if the point spread is so close, the HMs show what
> a close race it was, and I like that.
> What about making them be within a three points of first place
> instead of second? or the top ? % of the point spread? or within ? %
> points of first place?
there's a "power-house" in a small category that drives the number of
points the first place story received way up. Let's say we want to
award within 20% of the points awarded to first place, and first place
receives 50 points. That means everything that receives 40 or more
points gets an honourable mention. Now, the larger categories are
likerly to have "tighter" races (more stories scoring within fewer
points of each other) by virtue of having more stories. So in a smaller
category where first place scores high, it's very likely that *no*
stories will get honourable mentions because third place is lower than
forty points. Whereas in a larger category, there are likely to be
enough stories that some would fall in this interval and would receive
>>>>> I can think of several possible solutions. One is to award anYou're right, this would be a problem, but I'm not sure it's any more
>>> honorable mention to all the stories that get a certain number of
>>> points and aren't awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place. For example, we
>>> set the threshold at 20 points; if your story gets 20 points but
>>> awarded 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place, it gets an honorable mention.
> I think this is an overall good idea and would be ok if it were
> implemented, but I think it would be a difficult call to set that
> number, especially if we change the point system.
random than the current three-point rules. One solution might be to
wait to determine this limit until we have the actual figures from next
year. Anthony, would it be possible to see the number of points that
the top third (or half, or whatever percent of stories we want to
award) scored above? Say we decide we want to give honourable mention
to the top third of stories. I guess this would in effect be
recognising the top % of stories instead of within a certain point
range. The only problem is it wouldn't necessarily be an honourable
mention in a certain category, as which stories get an HM id etermined
by the *overall* pointspread, across all the categories.
>How is this not in keeping with the spirit of the awards? Is it that
>>>>>> Another way to address this is to assign honorable mentions based
>>> the number of entries per category. For example, let's say we want to
>>> have the top half of stories receive a place award or an honorable
>>> mention. (Not that out-of-line when you consider 60% of the stories
>>> a five-story category get an award.) Then we could just give
>>> mentions to the top stories below the places until we reach this
> I know that some judged contests do this and I highly support it in
> those venues, and I would support it here, but I don't think that
> it reflects the spirit of the awards as well as the first option,
> especially if we reward those who place within a percent of points of
> first place.
there could be some stories that place very close to the last
honourable mentions that just don't get recognised? If so, I wonder if
some hybrid situation might be doable:
1. Give honourable mentions to enough stories so that 50% get either
1st, 2nd, 3rd place or an honourable mention.
2. Give honourable mentions to any stories with the same number of
points as the last story to win an honourable mention by (1) above.
I have to admit that this is my favourite option, provided it's
codeable. But I can see the merit of either, and so I'm flexible.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Message: 10Having read the stats, I agree withb you -- they were complicated and
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:42:44 -0500
> From: rabidsamfan <rabidsamfan@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Author Review Blues
> Actually, someone did come up with numbers, which, IIRC, showed that
> sometimes authors won as authors even when stories didn't. It sounded
> this years system worked fairly well, to tell the truth, as far as how
> author awards are grouped and all.
> I'd still like to go from the story review to the author review via a
> if I could, though. *grin*
probably have some room for improvement, but they're not in as critical
of condition as I thought at first.
On the going from story review to author review -- I wouldn't have a
problem with this, if Anthony has time. It would be nice to go to a
form that allowed you to enter all the author reveiws at once like I
described a few days ago, but if that's not possible I sstill wouldn't
have any problem with what you're suggesting. Just so long as the
actual story review isn't entered in the box where you would type the
author review. :-)