Why aren't you voting?

[Conaill]

Oh, I don't mean that individual judges would have to spend any additional time to personally explain their choices. Not unless they really want to, of course.

But it seems to me that the judges' votes could easily be recorded and made public in some way. Shouldn't take much if any extra effort on behalf of the judges, but would provide a useful source of information for the voting public to decide whether they want to have individual judges coming back next year...

 

[Crothian]

With out the reasons why it would be pretty meaningless. I voted for Blue Rose in many categories. But what does that really mean to anyone?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Count me in the "apathy" category. I just really don't care who gets to be a judge; isn't really that important to me. And I'm also with Psi as far at the informed vote goes -- particularly this year since I haven't been keeping up much with books at all, and normally I don't even keep up with 3rd party books.

Except that, at the moment, books have nothing to do with the voting. Of course, if you don't care who's a judge, then that's a different matter entirely.

 

[Conaill]

With out the reasons why it would be pretty meaningless. I voted for Blue Rose in many categories. But what does that really mean to anyone?

Well, to me that means you've got good taste!

Likewise, I can think of a few Ennie winners or runner-ups in the past (not this year, luckily) where I had a "WTF?!" reaction. There's also one or two publishers who tend to get fairly high scores overall, but which I happen to dislike for a number of reasons. Knowing who voted for those products over some that I thought were clearly superior might have affected my choice of judges for subsequent years.

After alll, we all want to vote for judges whose tastes agree with ours. If we can only see the final outcome, the only conclusions we can draw are "incumbents are good" or "we need more fresh blood".

 

[Crothian]

Likewise, I can think of a few Ennie winners or runner-ups in the past (not this year, luckily) where I had a "WTF?!" reaction.

Like what?

After alll, we all want to vote for judges whose tastes agree with ours. If we can only see the final outcome, the only conclusions we can draw are "incumbents are good" or "we need more fresh blood".

Then demain reviews from the people running. If you want to know what I like and dislike read my reviews. That will give you an exceleent idea of what I enjoy. It will tell you specifically why I voted for Blue Rose. Reviews are much better then a list of books, and reviews can be done by everyone so it doesn't give previous judges an advantage.

 

[Umbran]

Except that, at the moment, books have nothing to do with the voting.

I think they do. Some folks (myself included) occasionally find it very difficult to vote on the products due to lack of familiarity. The goal is to find out which product is best - you can't honestly do that unless you know enough about multiple products. Yes, the system says that you can vote even if you only know one product, but to some of us (or at least myself) that just feels wrong. If you aren't going to vote on the products, the rest of the process can seem kind of meaningless.

 

[Conaill]

Then demain reviews from the people running. If you want to know what I like and dislike read my reviews. That will give you an exceleent idea of what I enjoy. It will tell you specifically why I voted for Blue Rose. Reviews are much better then a list of books, and reviews can be done by everyone so it doesn't give previous judges an advantage.

Totally agree. And I don't think anyone would need to know *your* Ennie voting record, Crothian, to figure out whether their tastes agree with yours. But there are some former judges who have a much less prolific reviewing record.

Sure, actual reviews are much more informative. They are also a lot more time-consuming, both for the judge candidate and for the voting public. And by the time voting rolls around it's far too late to start asking for reviews from the people who just applied for the job.

I'm not saying previous Ennies voting should be the *only* criterion to decide to keep a judge or not- far from it! But it may be a *useful* tool, and I can't really see any good reason not to make it public...

 

[Crothian]

Then start demanding them for next year. Sure, reviews are time consuming but so is being a judge. Maybe it needs a little higher buy in.

 

[Quickbeam]

This was my stance as well, though I've already voted, so perhaps this isnt the thread for me.

After last year I really wanted some new blood in the judges ranks. But based on the votes so far it appears we're going to get the judges we had last year, with maybe one new face.

This is precisely why it is critical that the community become more involved. I happen to feel the incumbents have done an admirable job in the past, but that doesn't mean I don't run against them or vote for others who might do an even better job.

We just need more involvement for change to occur. Heck, we need more involvement even if things stay the same -- at least then we know the impetus for change is outweighed by support for the status quo.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, actual reviews are much more informative. They are also a lot more time-consuming, both for the judge candidate and for the voting public. And by the time voting rolls around it's far too late to start asking for reviews from the people who just applied for the job.

Fine. Ask for them beforehand - some reasonable time before nominations open, the Powers That Be announce the product to be reviewed. Everyone who wants to nominate themselves turns in a review before the end of the nominations period, at which point they'll be posted for voter review. They're all of the same product, so we get to see how their tastes differ on an even playing field.

It doesn't need to be a requirement - but any nominee whodoesn't do it will look pretty shabby.

What product? I expect some small publisher would be itnerested in having 10 or so reviews of a pdf product posted and read by a bunch of folks, no?

I think it'd be a fine policy.