Reading the press release, I'm not sure how the "unprecedentedly large pool of fans", is supposed to get closer to the views of the "core audience". Reading the description of the process is just depressing. So, like you said.
The Hugo, the Nebula, the World Fantasy, the Dick, the Clarke, the Campbell, the other Campbell, the Tiptree, the Sidewise, the Prometheus ... I don't think even mysteries and romance have this many awards, let alone shrinking violets like technothrillers and lad lit.
One wonders though how many mystery or romance cons there are and what awards they award. Or maybee they are just different markets with different people involved.
From my singular experience with a mystery convention, the demographic skews older and more female, gets fewer and smaller conventions, expects to pay more money, but really appreciates wine and chocolate.
Some of those categories are badly in need of editing because the category descriptions don't match the category names and because the wording isn't always very clear. The fantasy novel category goes on and on about needing the same elements that were used in the category above to define a science fiction novel. The episodic dramatic category mentions episodes in the name, as if one should nominate specific episodes, and then, in the category, goes on about how specific episodes can't be nominated, only the show or season as a whole. Which is it?
It seems to be one of those cases where they really needed a copyeditor, but a copyeditor would just have pointed out how ill-conceived the whole thing is, so they just skipped that part and went straight to the public.
I remember when tor.com tried to do an open-voting award; it didn't work, lots of ballot-stuffing. The way Locus chose to correct for that, after the votes were in, was crap, but the problem they were trying to fix actually exists. But learning from other people's mistakes is a sign of weakness, apparently. This should go well.
Someone should put together an award for best scheme for ballot-box stuffing for awards with an open electorate that allow voting over the internet. That would be way more interesting.
And whoever wins, you can be more sure than usual that they deserve it...
Something like this is actually a thing at Redemption, in the form of the Ruler of the Universe competition. Voting on paper at the con only, and merely photocopying ballots will be disqualified for failing to be sufficiently innovative. (Apparently I cast an absentee ballot last year, as someone knew I had a membership but wasn't able to attend...)
I recall a magazine competition many years ago that occasionally gave an extra award for the most creative gaming of the rules; they called it the Grudging Fudging Award.
OT: I don't know if you have Centauri Dreams in your LJ feed, but they just (sort of) reviewed a Richard Cowper novel, in light of some recent scientific results.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2016-04-06 12:03 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Hazzarding a guess:
Re: Hazzarding a guess:
Re: Hazzarding a guess:
(Anonymous) 2016-04-07 05:33 pm (UTC)(link)One wonders though how many mystery or romance cons there are and what awards they award. Or maybee they are just different markets with different people involved.
Re: Hazzarding a guess:
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And whoever wins, you can be more sure than usual that they deserve it...
no subject
no subject
no subject
http://centauri-dreams.livejournal.com/456712.html
no subject