Voting For 2017/18 Anthology, Voices, From The Web’ Now Open!
Please send your votes (preferably 3 prose and 3 poetry) to email@example.com with either ‘ (or )’ in the , and links to the pieces in the body of the email. Voting open from 15th May to 15th June.
Voting closes 15th June 2018
Hello Andrea. I know I already voted before the re-jigs, but I didn't keep a record of what I voted for or how many of my votes i used up. Do you have a record or are we starting fresh?
I asked the following question two days ago in the 'Discuss UKA' forum but there was no answer:
Are the UKA Archive 2017/18 Anth. Noms. excluded?
Hello Andrea. Any chance you could answer the question I asked three posts up? I know I voted when the voting opened originally, before all the re-launchings, but I don't know whether or not those votes still stand, or, to be honest, what stories I voted for or how many votes I used up. I'm guessing that you do plan on starting again, but do we all start with six new votes or what?
Looking at the list as is, it appears an onerous task to jump backwards and forwards between authors in order to make choices: do we go down the list as presented, opening and reading each submission and making our decisions there and then? Or do we think, 'Wait a minute. This writer may have other stuff on here I'll like better than this particular piece.' ???
This has been brought up before, but not yet acted on. By storms and ionicus, at least. Why can't we have all the nominations of each author grouped together? So we can read all one person's work and decide which of those submissions we like best before we move onto the next writer's nominations? And listing those authors and their nominations alphabetically has also been requested before. Would be so much easier to negotiate, wouldn't it? We make a note of our choice on each writer but hold our actual votes until all authors have been read?
Andrea has asked me to try to respond to the above.
David, I would treat this as a fresh start. Simply follow the the current guidelines.
Bel, you can negotiate the list in any way that suits you. I expect different people will approach it differently
I will check what can be done with the list, as I can see your point. The problem is the amount of work Andrea has to do. I will see if I can help out. I not promising anything but I will try.
Isn't this a matter of making some technical changes and thus addressed to Richard? I know he asked for further clarification on what others were hoping to see. Wouldn't he be the one to make any such adjustments? Didn't imagine either you, e-griff, or Andrea would be involved - unless you mean in laying out how the list would look as a guideline for him to follow. I could do that, and I'd bet others could to.
Or is it that Richard doesn't have the time or isn't available at this point when the voting window is already open? If that's the case I'd say let it go for this year.
It has already been let go for one year Shelagh. What we're looking at now is two years worth of nominations. In fact there weren't all that many stories nominated in 2016 but loads of poems. If we let it go another year we're going to end up with a completely unmanageable amount of material, especially on the poetry side. We almost have already.
My suggestion would be not to focus on who the writer was but just take a look at each story or poem and maybe give it some kind of score out of ten. You will hopefully end up with very few nines or tens and these will be your votes. That's the way I intend to do it anyway. Still a great deal of work I know but fairer in a way. You're voting for the story and not the author.
What Shelagh was referring to was the nomination list which is not by author in alphabetical order, not the voting procedure. She said: "Why can't we have all the nominations of each author grouped together?"
She then added that if Richard could not effect that particular change now then the task could be postponed for another year.
Yes John, we know what you said. We have read your previous post. My post was in reply to David's comment which seemed to imply that Shelagh had asked for the anthology to be postponed.
Shelagh. Richard is looking at an automatic sort to achieve what you asked for. Looking at the list though, I doubt it can be done (we shall no doubt hear if it can. The alternative is a manual sort, which neither Richard nor Andrea have time for. I have said I will do it if he wishes as I think it would be preferable
Griff, why am I being addressed as if I'm the Union Boss around here! 🙂 🙂 Feels very weird! I was just restating what other members asked for long before I chimed in! But thanks for the clarification.
On the manual manipulation: I take it you mean you can get into the writing site files and change them as you can get into these forum threads and delete/move things around? Good idea, though I'm sure it will be quite a time consuming task for you. Thanks for being willing to do that.
I have to do that for the anthology contents list, which is somewhat easier. It involves moving the authors name to the beginning of the title, then using an automatic sort. But I'm waiting and hoping Richard can do.
I really don't understand your additional comment. I was answering your query specifically. Previously there had been some confusion over whose post was being replied to.