BooktubeSFF Awards discussion

note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived (2016) > Administrative Changes

Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nicole (new)

Nicole (nicolepo) | 107 comments This thread is for concrete discussion about administrative changes to the booktubeSFF Awards. Administrative changes include, but are not limited to: changes to the timeline, changes to the voting process, and changes to the overall structure of the awards. If you post off topic or irrelevant comments in this thread, I will delete them. If you want to suggest or speculate about changes that might work, but don't have a concrete topic to discuss, please post the suggestion in the Suggestions for the Future thread.

If you are proposing a new rule change, format your post as follows:
1) Proposal Statement - I would like to make x change to the BooktubeSFF Awards.
2) Details of change (if not covered by the proposal statement.)
3) Rational - explain why you want to change the administration of the BooktubeSFF Awards. What do you think this change will add to the awards or what existing issue do you think it will fix.
5) Potential drawbacks to the change - what might go wrong if this change is implemented?
6) How the new change would be implemented - if you are able to respond to the potential drawbacks by having the judges perform some specific action, explain that here.

If you are responding to a change someone else proposed, format your post as follows:
1) Proposal Statement - include the proposal statement from the change you are responding to
2) Thesis statement of your post - If you support the proposal, don't support the proposal, are asking for clarification, or would support the proposal if it was changed to resolve a specific issue, but don't currently support the proposal, state that right away. At the top of your post.
3) Explanation of your position - please keep this as informative and brief as possible.

If you are responding to a response:
1) Proposal Statement and who you are responding to - yes, hitting the reply button is fine, but make sure this information is clear at the top of your post.
2) Thesis statement (must include,) including your position on the original administrative change (if you created the original rule change or the discussion is on going it's fine to omit this)
3) Explanation of your position - kept informative and brief.

Repeat as needed.

If you proposed a change and would now like to modify your proposal based on feedback, post the new proposal in the same format as above as a new comment. Return to your original post and edit it to indicate there is an updated form of the proposal below (do not delete original proposal, merely note that it is updated below.)

As with all changes to the BooktubeSFF Awards rules, bear in mind that someone has to implement the change you propose. As of right now, that someone will likely be me, Elizabeth, and the other judges, but especially me. Do not be surprised if I push back on your proposal and ask for clarification. It is important for your proposal to be as fully fleshed out as possible in order to implement it.

Note: this thread is heavily moderated. If you are off topic even a little, I will warn you and/or delete your post. The purpose of this thread is to discuss and create administrative changes for the awards. Do NOT derail it, provide an incomplete proposal, or incomprehensible post. You have been warned.

message 2: by Brianne (new)

Brianne Reeves (bree_reeves) | 19 comments Mod
1) Proposal Statement - I would like to make a searchable index of fantasy/sff releases for the upcoming year to be made available to people on the #booktubeSFF awards website.

2) Details of change- The proposed index would be in spreadsheet form, and disaggregated by publisher, release date (month, date), author, work length, sub-genre, and key words listed on ISBN form. The index itself will be locked to non-admin edits, but a submission form will be accessible for those wishing to help contribute titles to be added to the form.

3) Rational - This would help in a number of ways including identifying potential backlog reading, helping nominators know what is eligible, help preempt readers for the upcoming year, and clarify category delineations for short work and novel in the upcoming year's nominations period. In addition, having it will help in post-nomination resorting, qualification verification, and general clarity. A category for vote count in each round will assist in any post-award analysis anyone would like to do.

5) Potential drawbacks to the change - It's really bulky as a task. While I think most of this would be solved by a monthly update to the form, it can be kind of a headache to set up and maintain without a community or designated group of people assisting. Note, checking publisher catalogues will assist in preempting much of the work as well.

6) How the new change would be implemented - I would volunteer to start the initial tracking. We could send a request for volunteers. Most catalogues are up on Edelweiss so implementation can start immediately.

message 3: by Nicole (last edited Mar 24, 2016 11:13AM) (new)

Nicole (nicolepo) | 107 comments Responding to Brianne about making a fantasy/SFF index.

I don't have the time to set up and administer the index, but as long as you are willing to do it, I will support it to the best of my ability.

I am totally down with this change as long as I don't have to spearhead the effort. If you're willing to take on most of the administrative tasks, I'm willing to help facilitate the project with creation of submission forms and by posting said forms to the booktubeSFF Awards social media.

message 4: by Sarah (new)

Sarah (sarahofthebooks) Responding to Brianne about making the SF/F index.
I think this is an excellent idea. I struggle with keeping up with back reading and remembering what is being released and when. This year I've started (thanks in part to the amazing Let's Read tracking spreadsheet) tracking and planning out the releases for the year I'm interested in to buy/checkout/listen to, and have found that it's immensely helpful. An index like this would be an great resource for the group.
It would especially help in terms of just general accessibility for other readers/members in the awards. For example, newer members would be able to tell at a glance what needs read/nominated.
Creating it would be the biggest hurdle. I agree that a call for volunteers would be necessary. I'm not expert at creating forms or formulas but I'd be more than willing to help contribute to something like this.

message 5: by Brianne (new)

Brianne Reeves (bree_reeves) | 19 comments Mod
If it sounds like something we want, I'll get started setting it up. It may take a while to get functional and updated, but I'm your girl.

Rachel (Kalanadi) (kalanadi) | 66 comments Re: Bree's proposal - I am all for this idea, and if you want help with the grunt work, I volunteer to help! Sounds like data entry, and I like doing that.

message 7: by Brianne (new)

Brianne Reeves (bree_reeves) | 19 comments Mod
Data entry and gathering! :D

Rachel (Kalanadi) (kalanadi) | 66 comments I'm curious about digging into publishers' catalogs myself... plus I have this lovely subscription to Locus, and my goodness they have a huge Forthcoming Books section (and book contracts and sales!), organized by authors and publishers. You can just hear me rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of digging into that.

message 9: by Nicole (new)

Nicole (nicolepo) | 107 comments Brianne and Rachel, please take the organizational conversation elsewhere. If you would like a new thread here, I'm happy to open one for you.

message 10: by Elizabeth (new)

Elizabeth Green | 5 comments I would like to make a change in how the popular vote is calculated.

I think that votes from people who have not read all the works in a particular category should be weighed less than someone who has read all the works. In terms of practicality it wouldn't be that hard using and excel spread sheet with a formula to weight the votes. How I envision this change is that a vote from someone who as read 2 out of the 3 works their votes would be worth 2/3 of a point.

I think this is important because I think the popular vote can be unfairly inflated or devalued by people choosing to vote without reading all the shortlisted works.

I think the main issue with this change would be the initial set up of the changes. However I believe with a little work and collaboration it could work.

message 11: by Nicole (new)

Nicole (nicolepo) | 107 comments Responding to Elizabeth about weighting the popular vote.

I am strongly opposed to this suggestion. On a philosophical level, I don't like the value judgement this forces us to impose on other readers. On a technical scale, this would be extremely difficult to implement 1) because there would need to be a reporting system to say if the voter has read all the works in a category or not, and that would be problematic 2) because the popular votes are tallied by instant runoff voting, there is no easy way to weight votes in this way. I'm not even aware of a way that exists. If you are aware of a way to weight instant runoff votes, please explain or link to an explanation.

A little more detail on my philosophical objection and why implementation would be difficult. People may not read all of the works in a category for a variety of reasons: the work is far into a series they haven't started, they are unable to obtain the work (either freely through a library system or at all, as is sometimes the case for folks outside the English speaking world,) or they just don't have time to get to everything during the readalong period. I don't want to punish community members who are unable to read every work in a category by counting their vote as 2/3 of a vote. I feel that is unfair and will discourage community participation. True, there are some ballots in the popular vote which rank their favorite work 1st and nothing else, but I believe the majority of voters have made a good faith effort to read the all nominated works. If they have not manged to read every work for whatever reason, they should still be able to vote with the same power.

Second, there is no accurate way to tell who has not read a work. On vote tallies, there is a group marked "No Preference." Ballots which have no preference have not ranked a work. I assume that most people do not rank a work because they have not read it, but it's also possible they have read the work and don't have strong feelings about it, and therefor don't rank it. We could assume people who do not use all of the ranks have not read all of the works, but 1) there is a chance we're incorrect and 2) there is a chance that people who have not read all the works would simply rank works they have not read in order to have their vote counted. Alternatively, I could ask people to self report how many works they read in a particular category, but I suspect this would be a highly inaccurate measure, as there is no benefit to the voter to report they read fewer works and have their voted counted for less.

message 12: by Elizabeth (new)

Elizabeth Green | 5 comments Responding to Nicole about weighting the popular vote.

I was assuming that people who marked no preference would do so because they didn't read the work.

I also didn't think about series. I agree with you on this point because it would be hard for people to read the fourth book in series when it means they have to read 1500 pages before they can even begin to read the fourth book.

With the points you have made I do agree that this is something that shouldn't be implemented.

back to top
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.