The alt-TOB Idea

[Heather]

I would love to be a judge if you still need any.

[Lark]

Poingu wrote: "AmberBug wrote: "How long will it be to read between rounds? I think the TOB does everything ahead of time with no spoilers. This way it's not a week to read 2 books."

Oh gosh, I wrote all that and see I didn't answer your thought that the TOB is pre-read with no spoilers. Well that just took a little of the fun out of it for me! I liked the idea of a judge sweating through Brief History of Seven Killings for 24 hours and thought it explained why some of these judgments on TOB are so cranky.

Well, I think a week for two books is possible but it would be challenging for anyone too. That was just my first idea. The collective pressure of the group might keep our later-round judges committed to getting the job done even if it meant reading at a very unusual pace for them.

[Juniper]

I am so excited to see all the activity here today - thanks everyone! I think this is going to be great.

Thank you, Poingu, for running with your idea! :)

[nomadreader (Carrie D-L)]

Poingu wrote: ") The deadline for each of the first round of 8 judgments can be on the same day, probably a Monday in early January. For each of the match-ups we'll set up a discussion thread here on this group, where the judge will post their decision, and participate in discussion.."

I really love the daily intrigue of ToB. If we stagger the first eight, posting one each day, the second round would still have the same amount of time if we stagger them too.

[Lark]

Heather wrote: "I would love to be a judge if you still need any."

Great! Yes, you just got us to having enough people for a Round of 16 with 2 organizers. We can still use more judges (for the final round, and we can get wild if more people join and add a zombie round for all I know) so I hope people keep volunteering.

1. Michele
2. AmberBug
3. nomadreader
4. Karen Michele
5. Drew
6. Lljones
7. Jennifer
8. Poingu
9. Amy
10. Jane from B.C...
11. Jen
12. Ryan
13. Topher
15. Heather

[Lark]

Drew wrote: "I'm still a little confused about when we're going to do this but I work on an academic schedule so I have fairly long periods when I'm off work: 3 weeks at Christmas, 10 days at the end of March, ..."

Thanks Drew. It sounds like being a first round judge will work for you if we pick and seed and bracket the books around the end of November, and start our tournament in January.

[Lark]

nomadreader (Carrie D-L) wrote: "I really love the daily intrigue of ToB. If we stagger the first eight, posting one each day, the second round would still have the same amount of time if we stagger them too. "

Yes, that makes sense. And then each judge has their day in the sun to be the only new decision.

[Lark]

nomadreader (Carrie D-L) wrote: "Challonge (http://challonge.com/tournament/brack...) might work for the bracket piece.
."

Thanks!

[Michele]

Poingu, who is #14 Judge?

[Lark]

ah, oops, snort

[Lark]

1. Michele
2. AmberBug
3. nomadreader
4. Karen Michele
5. Drew
6. Lljones
7. Jennifer
8. Poingu
9. Amy
10. Jane from B.C...
11. Jen
12. Ryan
13. Topher
14. Heather ...

[AmberBug]

All sounds great to me.

[Lljones]

poingu, could you explain how you would implement *seeding*? How would the seed be determined: Number of votes? Number of pages? And what would you do with it? Doesn't make sense to give the top two seeds a "bye"...would you use it for pairing?

Just wondering...

[Lark]

Lljones wrote: "poingu, could you explain how you would implement *seeding*? How would the seed be determined: Number of votes? Number of pages? And what would you do with it? Doesn't make sense to give the top tw..."

Well this could just be a holdover from TOB that doesn't make sense for us. I was thinking we could use the listopia votes here

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9...

as a rough guide for how likely it is for a book to advance to the next round vs. another book. We don't really need to do it that way though.

[Lljones]

Hi again Poingu (and thanks again for getting alt-TOB thing going....lots of enthusiasm mounting here!)

For me, finding time to read is akin to finding time to breathe: Not an issue. On the other hand, finding time to read/compose postings and reviews can be a problem (work 4 12-hour shifts, so those days I usually only have a few minutes to web browse). And because I do all my shopping at the library these days, acquiring the books in a timely fashion can be an issue at times. (I'm #195 in hold queue for City on Fire, for example. Don't expect to see that one for six months, at least.)

So I'd like to ask for first round judging, if possible. And if you end up with more judges than needed, I'd happily drop out and enjoy all the fun from the peanut gallery, with Ed.

[Lljones]

Hold on! I hadn't looked at the Listopia for awhile - just realized one of very favorite books was deleted due to publication date! Damn!!! I don't want to play anymore.

.
.
.

Just kidding. But I guess we should get the discussion about publication-date qualifiers out of the way.

[Lark]

Lljones wrote: "I guess we should get the discussion about publication-date qualifiers out of the way. "

Ok. October 2014 to October 2015?

[Lark]

Here is another idea to keep it fun and not burdensome: what if we limit our tournament to books of 350 pages or less, to avoid someone needing to read 1400 pages by the luck of the draw?

This would eliminate for better or worse the one book that is MOST likely to make the TOB, A Little Life, and by doing that would nudge us in the direction of making this a different experience from TOB vs. a parallel experience. That may appeal to some and not to others but it does give us some assurance that we won't get swamped by reading one week.

[nomadreader (Carrie D-L)]

Poingu wrote: "Here is another idea to keep it fun and not burdensome: what if we limit our tournament to books of 350 pages or less, to avoid someone needing to read 1400 pages by the luck of the draw?

This wou..."

Isn't the ToB field typically all of the calendar year it precedes, so in this case it would be 2015? I guess I care less about the start point than the end point. For this event, I wouldn't want to see a book that already competed in the ToB. Part of the fun will be debating books that haven't been in the tournament yet, even if some of them will be.

I like the idea of shorter books only. I'd be willing to go up to 400, even if part of that is so Fates and Furies could still be eligible:-)

[AmberBug]

Poingu wrote: "Here is another idea to keep it fun and not burdensome: what if we limit our tournament to books of 350 pages or less, to avoid someone needing to read 1400 pages by the luck of the draw?

This wou..."

I think 350 or less is very reasonable. I also like the suggestion that we try and avoid some of the books we KNOW will be in the TOB (yes, A Little Life is a perfect example).

[AmberBug]

Oh and also maybe we can avoid books in series? I'm one of those people that HAS to read all of them and would be very annoyed at the extra work or being forced to read out of order. If others don't care, then maybe just don't assign me a series book? Although, I'm now caught up with the Ferrante.

[nomadreader (Carrie D-L)]

AmberBug wrote: "Oh and also maybe we can avoid books in series? I'm one of those people that HAS to read all of them and would be very annoyed at the extra work or being forced to read out of order. If others don'..."

YES. I'm not caught up on Ferrante, but I could be if I have a month to read it and its partner.

[Lljones]

I'm going to enjoy this event no matter what ends up on the list (just like the real other TOB). But 350-page limit wipes out ALL of my favorite reads of 2015. Which is okay. I'm just saying.

[Lark]

nomadreader (Carrie D-L) wrote: "A Little Life came out in March 2015.

Isn't the ToB field typically all of the calendar year it precedes, so in this case it would be 2015? I guess I care less about the start point than the end point. For this event, I wouldn't want to see a book that already competed in the ToB. Part of the fun will be debating books that haven't been in the tournament yet, even if some of them will be. "

I suggested October to October because TOB does include late-published novels from the year before, and has a policy about it that I read somewhere on the site. Basically it's because they don't want to let great books published late in the year be at a disadvantage. We've had a discussion about it here on another thread where people are hoping that Preparation for the Next Life (published November 2014) and All My Puny Sorrows (published in US in November 2014 although earlier in Canada) are considered for the 2016 tournament.

I agree that we should eliminate books that were already considered and/or part of the 2015 tournament.

[nomadreader (Carrie D-L)]

Poingu wrote: "nomadreader (Carrie D-L) wrote: "A Little Life came out in March 2015.

Isn't the ToB field typically all of the calendar year it precedes, so in this case it would be 2015? I guess I care less ab..."

Thanks! That makes sense. I'm hoping for How to Be Both (for the official tournament too.) I read it when it was published in the UK and was glad its US date was moved up, but December publications tend to get lost.

[Lark]

Lljones wrote: "I'm going to enjoy this event no matter what ends up on the list (just like the real other TOB). But 350-page limit wipes out ALL of my favorite reads of 2015. Which is okay. I'm just saying."

These are all just ideas Lljones. We're entering the second stage of volunteering after "sounds great, sign me up!" ... known as "hey wait a minute what did I just sign up for..."

350 sounds constraining to at least two people already...how about 400?

[AmberBug]

400 is fine. I just don't think we should do a 700 page book of all patois. I really think it depends on the book. Or maybe we can even out the pages by putting a bigger book up against a smaller one? But would that give the hefty one an advantage?

[AmberBug]

I'm also hoping the books selected will be hidden gems that I wouldn't have otherwise read. Forget what books I loved this year... I'd rather be challenged with something new.

[Jen]

Hey Poingu, this is going to be so much fun, thanks for suggesting it. I respectfully request to be a first round judge, as my schedule can go whacky on short notice so a bit of extra time would work best for me. (And if you get an influx of interest in judging, I'm happy to help in another way)

[Heather]

400 sounds reasonable to me. And I typically read about 2 books a week, so feel free to use me as a judge for a round where the turnaround time must be quick.

[Juniper]

Re: page count: I am fine with whatever people are most comfortable with, so I am just throwing this out there for consideration -- Everyone's comfort will vary, so maybe the page limits depend on the judges who are matched with the reads? (Or does that unnecessarily complicate things?)

[Lark]

Heather wrote: "400 sounds reasonable to me. And I typically read about 2 books a week, so feel free to use me as a judge for a round where the turnaround time must be quick."

Heather, that's great! Thank you.

[Lark]

AmberBug wrote: "Oh and also maybe we can avoid books in series? I'm one of those people that HAS to read all of them and would be very annoyed at the extra work or being forced to read out of order. If others don'..."

Yes, although, just as A Little Life seems the one likely TOB book affected by putting length limits on our tournament, eliminating a series book seems to affect just one other very likely book, A God in Ruins. These two books coincidentally are 1st and 2nd on our Listopia Goodreads Picks for TOB 2016 list. That might just be ok though. I agree that it's not as fun to jump in the middle of a series.

[Topher]

For the record: I can judge whatever round. Page count isn't a big factor for me. Since seeding might be an issue, why not just pair books randomly or thematically?

Also, I'd suggest acing the first round finish at the same time, then publish the results every few days, that way the second round readers could judge during that in-between time.

Last: No Zombie, thanks.

[Lark]

Topher wrote: "For the record: I can judge whatever round. Page count isn't a big factor for me. Since seeding might be an issue, why not just pair books randomly or thematically?

Thanks Topher. I like "randomly." The site nomadreader suggested above that generates brackets for tournaments has a "random" selection.

I think giving judges in the same round the same strict deadline, then posting their decisions in a staggered way on consecutive days, is a great idea.

Also there is no reason I can think of for judges not to email in secret their choice to the next judge in line, giving that next judge more time.

[Lark]

Jennifer wrote: "Re: page count: I am fine with whatever people are most comfortable with, so I am just throwing this out there for consideration -- Everyone's comfort will vary, so maybe the page limits depend on ..."

I think this can be done, absolutely, except for the final round, where participation would be voluntary anyway. We can probably make sure that those of us with time constraints, or who don't want to commit to reading a very long book, are assigned to judge a round that doesn't have that particular elephant in the room.

[Lark]

Let's talk about how our 16 books will be chosen.

My current idea is to set up roles similar to TOB, where a couple of us take the job of hosts, and will not be judges except perhaps in the last round. I've asked Jennifer to help me split this job, and she is good to go.

Our first responsibility as I see it would include picking the 16 books. I haven't talked to Jennifer about it yet but I think this job would 1) entail being highly skeptical of our personal preferences and favorites, and 2) making sure the final choices represented a range of aesthetic and thematic reads, and 3) taking input from all of you but adding secret sauce so that there really is a wall between those who choose the first 16 books, and those who will judge them.

Before we move ahead I want to ask if the people who have volunteered to be judges are attracted to the idea of having two books land in their lap that they didn't choose for themselves and may otherwise never have read.

There are other ways to do the round of 16 book selection. We can poll, we can pick from books nominated for other awards, we can each choose one book. Other ideas welcome.

[AmberBug]

Poingu wrote: "Let's talk about how our 16 books will be chosen.

My current idea is to set up roles similar to TOB, where a couple of us take the job of hosts, and will not be judges except perhaps in the last ..."

I would like two books I haven't read and I wouldn't want to pick them myself. I would love to give input as to what books to include but I would like a surprise for myself.

The secret sauce... perfect.

[Jen]

I personally like the idea of getting 2 books I didn't see coming, so to speak.

Having said that, if it turns out I've already read one of them, that would be fine too!

I'm confident that you and Jennifer could come up with an intriguing list behind the scenes :)

Having said that, the TOB does canvas readers for input... I supposed you could refer to the Listopia Goodreads picks in making your choices (which is kind of our equivalent 'input') - but I'd like to think you'd have scope to throw in a few left-fielders too, a la TOB.

I personally prefer an element of surprise over polling.

[Ryan]

I agree that using the Listopia Goodreads picks would be a good starting point. Maybe you could use the top 8 books from the list that meet the requirements (less than 400 pages and not part of a series) and 8 "left-fielders" chosen by the hosts, giving consideration to other books on the Listopia list, books that have been nominated or won various industry awards, and perhaps a favorite "secret sauce" book from each of the hosts. Then, the first round could pit "fan favorites" from the Listopia list vs. "hosts' picks" from Poingu and Jennifer.

[AmberBug]

That list is seriously lacking in some great picks! I'll go over and add some from the list I have - I haven't read any of them yet, but they look interesting and fit the qualifications.

[Juniper]

There is something really appealing - from the official ToB - about how the 16 books are just decided by the 'hosts', or Morning News people and assigned to the reader-judges. And that element of surprise Jen has mentioned has always been one aspect I enjoy a lot. I feel like we have a good base to go from with the discussions we have had in the group this year, and the Listopia.

In my role helping Poingu (just sent an email to you, heh!), I did think another step I would take would be to look at our group members' shelves and what they've read/rated already this year (those who don't have private profiles). It might be a bit of a time consuming exercise, but I think it's a good step to take to get a good feel for things, coupled with the Listopia activity. And it wouldn't take me too much time or hold us up. (I can do this through the bookshelf of the group too - plugging in titles and see who has read, rated it, it or shelved it.)

[Juniper]

AmberBug wrote: "That list is seriously lacking in some great picks! I'll go over and add some from the list I have - I haven't read any of them yet, but they look interesting and fit the qualifications."

Awesome! And perhaps some people who have not yet had a chance to vote could make their way over there too! :)

[AmberBug]

Jennifer wrote: "There is something really appealing - from the official ToB - about how the 16 books are just decided by the 'hosts', or Morning News people and assigned to the reader-judges. And that element of s..."

Great idea! I trust you both as host pickers and I really think that way would make it fun for everyone.

[Michele]

I would expect that the books I judge will be a surprise to me and it's ok with me whether I've read them already or not.

[Lark]

Ok--it sounds like our plan is taking shape.

I really like what AmberBug did, adding ideas for books to the Listopia list. Thanks for the new-new book ideas especially.

[Topher]

Personally, I love the idea of getting two books that I'm totally clueless about.

[Jane from B.C.]

I added one book to the list that I enjoyed, but honestly I have not read that many books published this year. I think I have read seven books on the list.

Personally I am fine with a page limit of 400. Also, I would probably do better as a first round judge, if possible.
I, too, love surprises!

[Ellen]

Oh, no! I close my eyes for one minute and it all gets away from me; something like 200 new posts in the past 24 hours! This is my busiest time of year -- I run a music and dance retreat weekend and I'm up to my ears in alligators until next Sunday -- and so although I tried to skim through all the posts, it's all a bit too much. I'm too late to throw my hat in the judging ring, right? And how are the books being chosen? And have you all set up a website somewhere? AAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGHHHHHH! Can someone -- Poingu? Give me a quick rundown of where we are at this point?

[nomadreader (Carrie D-L)]

I don't want to drown in the minutiae of picking books, as there is no perfect way. I will always be disappointed at the exclusion of at least one book (I'm still heartbroken 10:04 didn't make the ToB last year), but I thought I'd offer some opinions on things I particularly like and dislike about the ToB process of choosing books. I am not wedded to their habit of including a YA novel or automatically including the National Book Award winner. I do, however, love the ToB's inclusion of a few small press titles, as those often get overlooked. I also like their commitment to young and/or new writers. In short, I trust the organizers to pick and seed books, but I hope to see at least one small press pick and at least one debut in our tournament. I'll take some time to try to add some more of those titles to Listopia too. Aside from that, I'm just excited for this event, as reading and talking about books with like-minded and un-like-minded people is always enjoyable!