[Sticky] Voting For 2017/18 Anthology, Voices, From The Web’ Now Open!
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.