The Seasonal Reading Challenge discussion
GETTING TO KNOW YOU
>
The Future of SRC
message 201:
by
Kim D
(new)
Aug 05, 2010 01:01PM
The rules look pretty good to me. Also if you guys needs help I am available. My job is very slow paced and I have a lot of time on my hands.
reply
|
flag
Sara Grace wrote: "So rule number 6...6. One book (one book only) can be read to its HALF-WAY POINT before the official start date/time of a challenge and still be counted for points.
For example, if you were to re..."
Okay.
How about instead of only allowing one started book, make the required number of pages read during the challenge greater than 250? Or the amount read less than 20%? Arbitrary numbers.Along with big book tickets being disallowed for started books.
I'm admitting that my suggestion is biased. I personally have a bunch of books that I started this challenge that I know I'm not going to finish and was hoping to use for the next.
Rhea wrote: "How about instead of only allowing one started book, make the required number of pages read during the challenge greater than 250? Or the amount read less than 20%? Arbitrary numbers.Along with b..."
Good ideas. I won't make any more changes yet, until I see if more peole have suggestions about this.
I think allowing started books for big book tickets is okay, though.
I'm thinking now of changing it back to the current rule that allows any half-way read book.
If we're voting, I liked the change to only one half-read book. I think that otherwise it dilutes the challenge. If it is a time-limited challenge, keep it a time-limited challenge. One half-read book is fine, because (to me) that accounts for the fact that you might happen to be in the middle of reading something at 12:01am. But otherwise it just strikes me as gaming the system.
AshleyFL wrote: "If we're voting, I liked the change to only one half-read book. I think that otherwise it dilutes the challenge. If it is a time-limited challenge, keep it a time-limited challenge. One half-rea..."I agree with this. I think just 1 book is very reasonable.
I also prefer the one book rule.
I tend to think allowing any half-read books should be OK. Other than the few people who might game the system, I think there are more people like me: if I don't like a book, I just quit reading and move on to something I might like more. However if that reject book would fit a task perfectly and I wouldn't have to go spend money buying something new, I'd likely pick it up again. Assuming there would be the potential of a few bad eggs (and honestly, we don't know if those bad eggs exist -it's not like they are going to admit they do) and punishing others by making someone go out and spend money on a book when they have something that works at home...it just doesn't seem right.
Lyn M wrote: "I also prefer the one book rule."Looks like everyone disagrees with me, and I'm actually not that disappointed. Maybe I'll be motivated to actually finish everything I'm reading before the next challenge. I haven't been down to under five books at a time in years.
AshleyFL wrote: "If we're voting, I liked the change to only one half-read book. I think that otherwise it dilutes the challenge. If it is a time-limited challenge, keep it a time-limited challenge..."I agree with this too. The challenge is based on a time frame so I was always a bit dubious concerning books read to the halfway point prior to the start of the challenge. I think allowing only one book to be started prior to the challenge allows for more fairness.
Whatever is decided concerning this specific rule, I still have no idea how people finish so much reading in 12 weeks??? I thought I was a fast reader, until I joined this group! LOL!!
Like Rhea, I am always reading more than one book at a time. I'm willing to go along with the only one book to be counted, but I guess that's about three books I won't be able to use for the challenge.
Jennifer, I thought I was a fast reader too but i only read 18 books for this challenge so far.
AshleyFL wrote: "If we're voting, I liked the change to only one half-read book. I think that otherwise it dilutes the challenge. If it is a time-limited challenge, keep it a time-limited challenge. One half-rea..."What about fewer than 5% or 10% of the total books of the challenge being half-read? It would come out to be 3-7 books for most challenges (depending on the % we used). That way it's still a small number of books allowed, but for people who know themselves and aren't actually planning on gaming the system, they can still have the option of starting that 500-page book.
I'd rather keep the rules fairly simple.Simplest here looks like any half-way read book is okay.
I don't see how anyone knows how many pages of a book you've read before the start of the challenge, and I don't see why we care. What you read when doesn't really have any affect on what I read when. If I were to actually finish, and I won't, do I care whether you get to design a 30-pointer and I only get to design a 25-pointer? I mean, is it something I can take to the bank and spend?
Jennifer wrote: "I thought I was a fast reader, until I joined this group! LOL!! ..."LOL! So did I, Jennifer. Nothing like a Reality Check, is there?? LOL!
Jayme wrote: "Jennifer, I thought I was a fast reader too but i only read 18 books for this challenge so far."I'm reading at about the same pace (just finished 18th, working on 3 more). So glad to see more of us around. :D
And, thank you to pjreads (and company) for deciding to keep the group going. Gems you are all!
I think someone said who won one of these that all her books were 300pp and under.
Not sure if we're still throwing out our thoughts on the whole half-reading or not question, but what the hey: I'm with the camp that likes the possibility of the new one-book policy. Whether or not this is a challenge or a competition doesn't really matter, but as stated before there is a time limit here so I do like the idea of the playing field (for lack of a better phrase) being somewhat level. If nothing else it might be nice to see how the reading challenge works with a new rule in effect. We've done several now where it was open to as many half-read books as one wants. Why not try something different now that we're talking about altering the challenge somewhat anyway? No harm in experimenting.
El wrote: "Not sure if we're still throwing out our thoughts on the whole half-reading or not question, but what the hey: I'm with the camp that likes the possibility of the new one-book policy. Whether or ..."I'm glad to hear any thoughts on any of this. Nothing's final yet.
I just don't know how you'd police any 1/2 read policy.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I just don't know how you'd police any 1/2 read policy."Well, none of it gets policed, right? Anyone can claim to read a book they've never read as well as claim not to have started them before the time of the Challenge. It's all honor system anyway.
It is all based on the honor system and really.....what's the fun of "completing" a Challenge without reading all of the books? What's the point of joining a Challenge if you aren't going to play by the rules? For those reasons, I think everyone sticks to the rules here.I, too, am in favor of the "one book only to the half way point" rule. As El says, it starts us all off at the same time and evens the playing field. It would be interesting to try it out.
You can't "police" or enforce any of the rules. It is totally based on the honor system, and let's face it, this is supposed to be "fun" either by expanding your reading horizons or as a challenge to finish all the tasks. Either way, there is no "prize" (by that I mean money or gifts etc).Just keep the rules and tasks easy to understand and I'll be happy.
Thank you PJReads and Sandy for keeping this going. I'm glad to see that if Cynthia isn't coming back that there is a plan to start a new group. Also-thanks to everyone who makes this challenge fun and educational (I always find a new book every time I'm on this board!).
I also vote for a limited number of half-finished books (less than 3). For those of us that practice reading monogamy, it's somewhat demoralizing to see how quickly those with more promiscuous reading habits can rack up points with unlimited half-read books. See the first page of posts in the completed tasks thread for Winter 2009-2010.
I vote for only one book half read (or maybe two) because to me it's about reading in the season - and if someone half started loads of books the season before then it's not really in the spirit of the challenge. I understand someone may have several long or tough books half read - I'm the same but see this as an incentive to get my act together and finish them!
I am in the only one book half read camp. Some people finish the challenge in one month, they could then spend the next two months half reading a whole pile of books and when the next season's tasks are published they fit them in and before the challenge has even started they have half finished it already!As for policing as everyone else has said, nothing is policed. It's for fun. It is totally up to each of us how we decide to approach the challenge as it's a personal thing. So some people like to finish it in one or two months whereas other people would prefer to make it last for the whole three months.
Mod
On the "partially read" issue, I would have to say I'm on the fence. Yes, it seems a little like "gaming the system" if you half read a whole stack of books before the challenge starts, then zoom in and claim a bunch of finishes. But, really, does this matter? As several people have pointed out, this challenge is all on the honor system, and there aren't any prizes. If someone was that crazy to "win," they really wouldn't ever have to read even one book, just say they did.
And then, who would actually be the loser?
When I see these things and start to get annoyed, I remind myself why I'm doing this - it has had a wonderful effect on my reading, since I've broadened my reading tremendously. And, I actually think I almost get as much fun out of reading the tasks, finding books to fit them and then changing my reading plan as other people post their books which I decide that I absolutely must read! And last but certainly not least, meeting new online friends. So, what I get out of the challenge really has nothing to do with what anyone else does, as long as they keep telling me about other good books to add to my list!
It seems a little clearer to have a defined rule, like "one book" or one plus the "white whale." On the other hand, I also see the issues raised by folks who are reading a bunch of books at a time (I am one of those readers myself, usually 3 to 4 books going at a time), end up the challenge with a few far-from-finished books and want to use them for the next challenge.
So, there you go - no definite position from me, I could go either way. (There's a lawyer for you, right?) I could also go with the idea of stating the overall philosophy of the challenge, and then leaving it to each participant's conscience.
I hope Cynthia is well and that she will return.I'd hate to see the SRC go by the wayside and it's generous for you ladies to offer to help. I like the modifications you've suggested and can't think of anything more that I'd add or change. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
I changed #6 to:"6. Books longer than 299 pages that were started before the beginning of a challenge can be used to fulfill a task if more than half the book is read during the challenge.
For example, if you were to read 149 pages (or less) of a 300 page book before the start of a challenge, this book would count if it met a task requirement. However, if you had read 150 pages (or more) of a 300 page book before the start of a challenge, this book would not count."
Post 159 has the latest draft with this change & other tweaks.
Having 4 moderators will help, but then it will become even more of a problem when players do not have unique GR user names (first name field of profile).Everyone here is so creative -- please do something creative with your name.
Add something after your name like SARA ♥ (see note)
OR
Change your name to something creative like many in the group
OR
Just change your name in your profile to your Readerboard name
ETA: If you prefer not to change your GR user name, then another way to help is to put something in the Last Name field of your profile. (This shows when the cursor hovers over the avatar.)
This can be fun and will really help the moderators.
NOTE: Not all fonts work for this LINDSEY TN added a V in a circle which Sandy can see but I can't.
Sandy wrote: "Quickly weighing in from a hotel lobby in Indiana.....To be honest, I, too, was feeling annoyed whilst following this thread. This is a book club with the unexpected benefit of connecting with individuals globally: No age limits, educational requirements or credit checks. Let's move past absent moderators, plagiaristic challenges and library fundraisers. We can relish new leaders who've stepped up, be flattered by those who wish to copy and only hope our libraries survive through the next decade. The new rules look great - now let's grab a book or a nook or a cd player and get back to why we joined this challenge in the first place.
pjreads wrote: "Having 4 moderators will help, but then it will become even more of a problem when players do not have unique GR user names (first name field of profile).Everyone here is so creative -- please ..."
While this seems like a good idea and I can understand wanting an easier way to track people, but I have work colleagues and some clients on my Goodreads list. In addition, I have been a member for Goodreads for 3 years and have had the exact same name and profile picture. I don't want to add symbols after my name or change my name to something more creative or even change my name to match a profile name created for me just for a challenge. I did customize my url to be “njreader” at one time in order for someone to locate my profile but we shouldn't be expected to change our personal profiles when Cynthia never seemed to have a problem tracking us all by herself.
Rebecca NJ (I don't want the other Rebeccas caught up in this.)
pjreads wrote: "I changed #6 to:"6. Books longer than 299 pages that were started before the beginning of a challenge can be used to fulfill a task if more than half the book is read during the challenge.
For e..."
I think this is the best way to handle this rule. As far as people having to change their names, I think you are going to get a lot of push back on that issue. I don't have an easy solution for you though. I agree that it would make it easier if everyone just had something added to their real name like Sara's heart if someone else might have your name. People with unique first names might be okay.
If we had a set way to post read books and include readerboard name in it that would get rid of the issue of people not wanting to change their GR profile names. I think a suggestion made by someone else earlier in this thread included this ie:
Readerboard name:
Book Read:
Task:
Number of points claiming:
Total number of points:
pjreads wrote: "I changed #6 to:"6. Books longer than 299 pages that were started before the beginning of a challenge can be used to fulfill a task if more than half the book is read during the challenge.
For e..."
I like this rule change! That way, the "white whale" books are covered, and the quick 200-pagers are not.
Alice wrote: "Readerboard name: Book Read:
Task:
Number of points claiming:
Total number of points:
..."
I would add to this list:
GR Authors claiming:
Big Book Tickets claiming:
"Alice wrote: "Readerboard name: ..."
I would put the task in front of the book name, add the author's name, make those two have to be links and make sure you designate any GR Authors and Big Books
As an Example:
Readerboard Name: Beth NC(US)
Task: 10.2 The Blank Who
Book Read: The Girl Who Played with Fire by Stieg Larsson
** 503pgs claiming Big Book Ticket**
Task: 15.10 Other Things May Challenge Us
Book Read: Daughter of the Forest by Juliet Marillier
**GR Author**
Extra Required Info: I love that my family is so close to each other. With 4 children and 8 grandchildren, we are a clan, and sometimes it is a juggling act to get everyone in the same place at the same time. But we all manage to do that at least twice a month. And I hear from all of my children several times a week.
Points Claimed: 25
GR Authors Claimed 1
Big Book Tickets Claimed 1
Total Points Claimed 750
While I do like BethNC's structure, I feel like there should be a cumulative for BB tickets & GR author tickets as well. That way, it's easy to see cumulative in all areas to double-check. I know that's how I noticed my GR tickets were missing off the list -- I looked at my cumulative number and didn't see those on the listing.But beyond that minor nit-pick, I think it's very easy to use and shows all necessary details.
I like Beth's format, but I don't think that the links should be required. Otherwise the format is pretty much what I would say perfect. You could always add your little creative voice at the bottom with the things you have. I do like everything from Readerboard Name down to Extra Required Info and how it is claimed.
I think links for the titles should definitely be required, but wonder if it's redundant to link the author. If it's to check a Goodreads Author status, clicking on the title alone brings up the author's name and it also shows in parentheses that they are a GR author. It seems people have a hard enough time linking the book that I can't imagine it would be easy for everyone to remember to also link the author.
I agree with El. Linking to the title should be required but linking to an author is redundant. That's listed in the link of the book, as is any other info that needs to be checked (such as GR Author and # of pages). It would be nice if the link was for the edition (or as close to it) that was actually read. It makes it easier for the moderator to check and ensure that all the correct info is there.
I agree with El. It isn't hard to link, but some people just don't like to, want to, or know how to do it. I think the book would be sufficient. However, I think it will be hard enough to get everyone to do the links for books or do them period.
Rebecca wrote: "pjreads wrote: "Having 4 moderators will help, but then it will become even more of a problem when players do not have unique GR user names (first name field of profile).Everyone here is so cre..."
The information in your URL helps. Thanks.
I think you were the only Rebecca until this challenge.
I don't have a clue how Cynthia was able to deal with all the duplicate names and the variety of idiosyncratic posts for completed tasks.
El wrote: "I think links for the titles should definitely be required, but wonder if it's redundant to link the author. If it's to check a Goodreads Author status, clicking on the title alone brings up the a..."It helps to have a link for the author when you're claiming a GR Author ticket.
Right now isn't the rule either link to book or title and author? Looking it up with title/author is a little extra work, but I think as long as either one set or the other is there, it should be okay.Granted, I'm all for learning and linking to a book isn't really /that/ complicated, either...
I'm not a big fan of having to link to the authors, too, though. I could see requiring the linked title and the author's name when claiming points, but I don't think linking to both should be necessary.
Edit: Well, what PJ said about the GR Author ticket would be the exception lol
Meghan wrote: "I agree with El. It isn't hard to link, but some people just don't like to, want to, or know how to do it. I think the book would be sufficient. However, I think it will be hard enough to get ev..."I know we're not going by my opinion alone, lol, but I feel if you're not willing to link at least the title you shouldn't get the points. This challenge is fun, but we've all acknowledged the fact that moderators and helpers have quite a bit of work to do to make this challenge keep up to the standards to which we've all become accustomed. I feel we should be willing to give a little since we're getting so much in return. If linking to a title is required to keep this ball rolling, then we need to do it and there should be no tears. :)
The link to the book tells you whether the author is a GR author. No, just hovering over the link does not, but clicking the link gives the Goodreads Author information.
Ms Anderson wrote: "Edit: Well, what PJ said about the GR Author ticket would be the exception lol"Yeah, but again that info is on the title page too when you click on a book link. Right next to the author's name. If he/she's a Goodreads Author it says it right there. If it doesn't say it, they're not a Goodreads Author.
El wrote: "I feel if you're not willing to link at least the title you shouldn't get the points. .."It only takes a minute or two extra to link both the book and the author, and this saves the moderators much more time than that. AND it ensures they get the right book. When you link the book, if you click on add book/author again, it defaults back to the book you just linked, you click on author tab and you can link the author too. Since this is required for Goodread Authors, shouldn't we all get in the habit of just automatically doing it for all the books we post?
Also, a lot of us get reading ideas and new authors from looking over everyone else's posts. Being able to link to the book and the author you find interesting from a post on here is a great benefit.
The Seasonal Reading Challenge
Books mentioned in this topic
Daughter of the Forest (other topics)The Girl Who Played with Fire (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Neil Gaiman (other topics)Stieg Larsson (other topics)
Juliet Marillier (other topics)
