Readers' Choice Awards

greenspun.com : LUSENET : MATH Plus One : One Thread

There's been a lot of talk here and there about starting up Readers' Choice Awards for online journals.

I know that a lot of you don't have your own journals, but read many, and even if you are a journaller, you're also obviously a reader.

What do you guys think? Are they needed? Would you participate?

If you were in charge of them, how would you structure them? What's the good we can take from Diarists system? What's the bad we can leave out?

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

Answers

There's been some discussion about this, enough that a group of us are sort of moving in the direction of getting something going. Hopefully there'll be more to tell soon.

In the early stages of discussion, it sounds like the issues that are of the most importance to people are allowing readers to vote in the awards, and also new categories and greater flexibility in choosing those categories. There are some issues to overcome, of course, such as avoiding voter fraud, but some good ideas have already been floated.

Hopefully, in a week or two, we'll be able to bring you something more concrete. The focus at this stage is on logistics, some general format and structural issues and whatnot. Reader involvement rather than exclusively journaller input is the focus, and I hope there'll be some good discussion here and when we start going more public with some of our ideas.

This is an idea that is long overdue, and I'm happy to see so many people who are interested.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


One thing that I would keep from the Diarist.net awards is that they solicit an explanation as to why you're nominating this particular journal. I think that when finalists/winners are announced, a couple of comments from nominators should be published -- I think the winners themselves would get a kick out of it, and everyone could see what readers like.

If that makes any sense.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I think that's a really good idea, WG. It's always nice to see that, even if you're not a finalist/winner, there are people out there who think you should be.

Plus it's a big ego boost, and who doesn't love that?

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I think it is also important that everyone who is nominated should be told, not just finalists.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

I've never been a real participant, but I love that the diarist awards have so many different catagories.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I think it is also important that everyone who is nominated should be told, not just finalists.

I heartily agree, though I'm not sure I'd make the list public; just send an email saying, "Congratulations! You were nominated for ___ ."

Because I don't think nominees should necessarily known who nominated them; that could easily lead the way to, "Why didn't you nominate me? You're my FRIEND!" and so on.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I agree with the whole nominee thing. I mean, why can't you make a no ballot -stuffing rule and then the entry/site with the most nominations becomes a finalist. What's up with all this "voting" nonsense to pick finalists? The panel should be completely objective and secretarial.

It can just be that the top 5 become finalists. (Because really, 3? What award has 3?)

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I love this idea. I have no journal of my own but there are several that I read regularly, I would get a kick out of giving props to them. I'm surprised that no one has done this sooner.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

I'm all for it. If someone will e-mail the address thing again (I've lost it!)... thanks!

Here's a question - who participates? I am a [i]reader[/i] of other journals. But, since I am able to participate in the Diarist.Net awards, I shouldn't also be able to participate in the Reader's Choice, right? So, it would be for journal readers ineligible to participate in the DNAs, I'm assuming.

And thanks to those coordinating this, by the way. I know it's a big project, but one whose time has come.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I would hope not, PG, since we're all readers.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I don't see why you couldn't participate in both, PG. Are you saying you should only be able to participate in the Reader Awards if you were ineligible to win a Diarist award, or just about the voting, or what?

I am con-few-sed.

Oh, and nice use of UBB code on a non-UBB forum, trash.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


Here's what I would propose:

1. Anyone is allowed to nominate. If you also keep a journal/blog, cool, but it won't make a difference.

2. You cannot nominate (1) yourself; (2) the same journal more than once in the same category (i.e. ballot stuffing). Journals should be permitted to be nominated in more than one category, and for the same category more than once.

3. There should be at least one category (which the Diarist awards have) for non-time-specific entries. Otherwise I don't know how often you'd do them -- once a month? once a year?

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


I like the whole "most nominations wins" thingy, because nominations are pretty much votes anyway.

What about the "don't pimp for yourself" rule? Because I'm completely open to bribes and I think that pimping my vote could become a nice sideline job, making a little extra to put food in my chillun's mouth, you understand.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001


1. Let nominees opt out of the awards. This is the biggest peeve I have with diarist.net awards - you can't take yourself out of the running, and they don't give advance notice when you are a finalist, so you have absolutely no choice in the matter, unless you either just take the entry in question down during the voting period, which is what I did twice, or grimace and pretend you have no idea there are people voting on your site, which is what I did the last time - in a perfect world, it would be a lot nicer to let people know they are nominated, and if they wish to decline the nomination, they can do so quietly, and their spot can go to the next journal on the list.

2. Screw the 'panel' crap and go by number of votes.

3. 4 times a year is about 2 times a year too many....an award isn't very special when it is always in the process of being given out.

4. Vigilance in insuring finalists actually meet the criteria for the category - I can't think of a bigger joke than the 'multimedia' category of the diarist.net awards - I think Scott from medeasin won it recently, which I get, because he is an artist, and brings that medium to the digital one, but generally I look at the finalists in that category and laugh - is the use of gifs a multimedia thing?

5. Categories that aren't so obvious to write an entry for - when it gets broken down to 'most romantic' or 'most dramatic' I think a lot of very strong writing gets discounted. And what is more annoying than seeing people write entries hoping for a nomination?

My ideal Reader's Choice Awards would probably be a vote among readers for nothing more than the top 10 noncommercial personal sites. No categories for people to suck their way into, no panels, no frills, and not too often. Just the top ten best written sites, voted on from a list of nominees, and maybe the top 5 best designed. Simple, easy.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2001

My only hesitation about getting rid of the panel and the finalists is that it seems like it would favor popular journals. If I have ten times the readership as some new or less-known journal, I can count on having ten times the nominations, and I'll always win.

Having finalists sort of gives lesser-known journals a chance to be brought into the light for people to explore. If it is simply the person who gets the most nominations, I think it then becomes a popularity contest for real (and perhaps that's all it really is) rather than allowing new voices to get attention.

That's the catch, isn't it? Have a panel and risk having cliques and favoritism, or don't and let the popular journals muscle their way through. Good luck working THAT out...

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001



The only thing I would strongly, strongly suggest is to absolutely, positively make any panelist ineligible to be honored while they're on the panel.

It's such a small thing, but it would add a lot of credibility to the awards by removing any appearance of conflict of interest.

I also agree with the people that said the finalists shouldn't necessarily be those with the most number of nominations, because then the more popular journals always would win without the smaller sites being able to even fire a shot. The number of nominations should be a factor, but not the only one.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


I think you should all listen to Mike, because he is wise.

Also, I agree about having a panel. If it's all nominations willy-nilly, then people who have really damned good journals, but not a lot of readers, would never get reco'nized.

And the people of the small readerships but the fantastic writing need the recognition, dig?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


"My only hesitation about getting rid of the panel and the finalists is that it seems like it would favor popular journals. If I have ten times the readership as some new or less-known journal, I can count on having ten times the nominations, and I'll always win. "

I agree, it could suck...but what if there was a rule saying you could only win once? Because once you have won once, would you want to win again? Or make only one category a 'most popular' one, and win it every awards round :)

What I dislike most about the idea of a panel is that there is room for so much bias... 50 people could nominate a specific journal, which would indicate that it should probably be a finalist, but the panel has the authority to say no, it shouldn't be, so it won't be. That just sucks. If 200 people nominate journals, what right does a panel of 8 have to decide which of those nominations are more valid than others?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


My issue with not having a panel is that then it becomes a sheer, raw, unadulterated popularity contest -- unless there's an iron-clad rule against pimping your candidacy, which is difficult to imagine -- and anyone not among the most-read journals need not bother applying.

Also, it increases the chances of insane things happening. For example, someone wanting to play a joke on everyone could write an entry consisting of the phrase "I like basketball" written 100 times, get all their friends, family members and buddies from the college basketball message boards to nominate that for best entry ... and win. If we're basing both the finalist selection and the awards themselves strictly on number of votes, what's to stop something like that from taking place?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


The only problem with that, Kristin, is that there will never be 50 or 200 nominations in a single category. The feeling I get is that the nominations for individual categories number in the tens, maybe twenties.

It sucks, but I think one of the biggest problems with these awards is actually getting people to nominate in the first place. I've been guilty of it myself. I'll think, "Oh, someone else will nominate them...they're so good, why wouldn't they?" And then everyone will think that and the person won't get nominated at all.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


The panel does present problems, I agree. In the past, there has been some question of impartiality, and it can leave a bad taste in everyone's moputh. (Mine included, at least this last time.) I don't know, maybe the answer is a larger panel, more diversity?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001

Is that feasible, though? I mean, are people knocking down the door to get on the diarist.net awards panel? (Seriously, are they? I have no idea.)

Also, why is everyone awake at this ungodly hour?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


I don't know why everyone's awake at this hour.

I just want to know what a "moputh" is.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Dear AB:

In re:
"Oh, and nice use of UBB code on a non-UBB forum, trash." :

Suck Old Buck.

love, P.


That out of my system, I guess the point I was inquiring about earlier is, wouldn't the idea of the Reader's Choice Awards be to give readers who aren't able to vote in the DNAs a chance to be heard? I mean, obviously we are all readers. Why have a different set of awards at all, if (we / y'all / they) aren't trying to delineate between those who can vote in the DNAs and those who can't?

But, upon more consideration, I guess it would be pointless and difficult to try to differentiate in the actual procedure.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


I think that there should be a panel, but I also think the panel should be largely secretarial. You're right that going strictly by "most noms" means it'll be harder for smaller journals to "win", but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth to know that if one site gets nominated 20 times but a panelist's friend's site gets nominated ONCE, then the friend's site could be a finalist. Because isn't it reader's choice?

It is tricky, but we're all smart, so we figure out.

Also, I second Kristin's suggestion to be able to decline being a finalist/nominee.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


"The only problem with that, Kristin, is that there will never be 50 or 200 nominations in a single category. The feeling I get is that the nominations for individual categories number in the tens, maybe twenties."

I can't help but think that if there was an award opened up to all readers, that didn't appear to be such a flawed process, and that was well publicized, that didn't ask so much of nominators (ie asking them to fill those forms out 4 times a year) there would be hundreds of nominations. If it was linked on Metafilter, or /., sent to notify lists by individual diarists, linked from the big forums, there could be huge numbers of nominations. I think it would be waaaaay more successful than the diarist.net awards.

The panel process - the idea that a panel would sort between popularity contest and Really Good Writing seems very, very flawed to me, for a few reasons. If we say that it isn't fair for someone with a large readership to go against someone with a small readership, aren't we really just punishing someone with a large readership for having a lot of readers? I mean, and bear with me, it is way early in the morning, but don't sites gain a large readership because they are well written and readers enjoy the site? Isn't that what awards are supposed to be honouring? Why should someone with a large readership be punished for being good, and being appreciated by their readers?

And how is a panel supposed to know who is simply underappreciated? It isn't like a panelist would have any facts to base that on - we aren't publishing our stats on our front pages, so what it comes down to is panelists deciding based on their own personal perceptions of who has a large readership, and who doesn't, or who they personally have heard of and who they maybe haven't, and then boosting the site they feel doesn't have as large a readership. It is all brutally subjective, and that makes it meaningless.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


I'm not sure this is a bad idea, but I do agree with Kristen about the large/small readership thing. And what constitutes a large readership? I mean, what's the cut-off number of hits-per-day that makes it big or small?

I think those are complicated factors. How is a panel supposed to deal with it?

And another thing, there are so many damn journals. The ones that are repeatedly nominated for diarist awards represent the smallest drop in the biggest bucket. How many diaryland journals are there alone? A zillion. And what about the metafilter people and whoever else?

How will the panel be chosen?

This is a tough one, peeps. I admire you for taking it on.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Here is an idea that I have in my mind about how the whole "nominations only" v. "panel picking finalists" idea: what if anyone can nominate, and then every site or entry that is nominated becomes some sort of "first round finalist." The first rounders get listed on the award site, and then everyone gets to see everyone who's been nominated and choose winners from that field. (Maybe everyone could pick 3 or 5 winners?)

I don't like the idea of "most nominations wins," because I think part of the point of having nominations is that you may know of some journal that I've never heard of, and if you nominate it, I may read it and LOVE it - but I never would have nominated it myself. It's not like there's this tiny limited pool of journals out there that we all know and love (I mean there is, but there also isn't, if you know what I mean). I can even imagine a scenario in which I nominate journals A and B for "most romantic entry," for instance, but then when I see the entries that have been nominated from journals C and D (journals or entries that I'm not familiar with), I end up voting for those instead. Part of the function of nominations is that we can pool our collective "favorite journals."

In this scenario, then, the sheer number of nominations wouldn't matter (so a popular journaller who got 20 nominations wouldn't have an edge over a relatively unknown journaller who got only 1 nomination) as far as making it to a later voting process. Everyone would be listed, and then everyone would be voted on.

The biggest problem I see with this is that while you may very well be able to get a panel of 9 people to agree to spend a lot of time plowing through entry after entry and journal after journal in a relatively short time frame, it might be too much to expect that same time commitment from everyone who's voting. In the end, people might look at an overwhelming list of 50 journals (or more!) that have been nominated and then just end up picking the 3 or 5 that they've already read. And then, right or wrong, we're probably just back to the whole popularity thing we'd have if we just added up the nominations and declared a winner from that.

Have I gotten anywhere, or have I just talked myself in a circle? Does this make sense? Is there a way to make anything like this work? Should I just shut up now?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


If this is a reader's choice award, and the reader's make nominations for the award, wouldn't the most nominations show the reader's choice?

There may be better writing out there, but if the readers are choosing to read another journal, then that is the choice. Popularity is going to be a factor, but why is that unacceptable? It would seem to me that if 100 people nominate Wil Wheaton and only 4 nominate Vampira the Deep and Intellectual Journaller, then Wil Wheaton is the reader's choice, even if Vampira's essay explaining a new and brilliant interpretation of E=MC squared (don't laugh at me, I don't know how to make the little squared thingiedoodle) is 10 times better than Wil's "Captain Kirk used to be a dick but now I think he's real fly" essay.

Nominations are the only thing that makes sense to me if it's to be different than diarist award. Of course, it is wide open to ballot stuffing.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Well, let's look at it this way. Compare this to the Viewer's Choice Awards, or the People's Choice or whatever.

If I nominated Shelby Lynne for a People's Choice Best Female Vocalist Award (and such a thing may not exist, I am just using it as an example), she would not win over Britney Spears, who would undoubtedly get more nominations, because she is far more popular based on the number of people who know about her. But she is not in any way more talented.

So what am I trying to say? I have no idea. I'm just attempting to make an analogy to show that sometimes, it's not who you know but how many people know YOU, and, frankly, how many people know about the awards to vote in the first place.

See, sometimes I can't explain things so good, but y'all probably get it.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Well, this isn't an either/or thing; it's not as if the minute the Reader's Choice Awards appear, the Diarist.net awards are going to shrivel up and die. Both can peacefully coexist.

The RCAs are never going to be able to fully discount the popularity issue; no awards really can. (If The Corrections hadn't sold hundreds of thousands of copies, gotten the front page of the New York Times Book Review, and so on, would it have been more or less likely to win the National Book Award? And so on.)

I like Jessamyn's idea, though I would say you have to have a higher standard -- say, your journal has to get 5 or 10 separate nominations (from different email addresses) to get to the judging round.

One option -- and this may be too unwieldy -- is to give readers "points" in the judging round. So: say there are 10 categories, and you get 2 points per category, so 20 points. You can vote in all 10 categories and give 2 points to each journal you like best in that category, or you can throw all 20 points behind one journal in one category. But some people may consider one-person-one- vote fairer.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


WOW. This topic is mammoth now.

Isn't something entitled the reader's choice supposed to be for the readers? I think the "I like basketball" written 2300 times can be taken care in teh qualifications to be nominated. I mean even if many people think Brittney Spears is crap, a lot of people like her and would vote for her for people's choice. Now is she the best or high quality. Eh probably not. Then again, any given quarter there are people who could point to entries that they think are better than the finalist nominated for the diarist.net awards. I'm not sure if that can be helped. Eh, I'm not sure what the issue Allison (hate the daddy one, not radical fem) is trying to address with that post. Maybe I'll address something else.

Eh I'll put it this way. No one ever said Madonna is the greatest singer but her ability to market herself is something that should be awarded in an of itself. Maybe there are journals and webpages like that as well>

I like the idea of a finalist round. I think to do it right, they should only be once a year. Partly because the logistics in doing it right is going to be time consuming.

Should the Reader's Choice awards be only for journals or should it be to private websites in journal to include people who have their own online comics, blogs, etc?

If there is a panel, anyone who is on that panel cannot be nominated and cannot PIMP for nominations of other sites on their personal pages to avoid a conflict of interest. That got to be controversial this time around and it really doesn't sit well.

Okay, those are my ideas.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Anyone on the panel can't even TALK about the award-ness and what's going on. No mention of 'oh, hey, I'm on this panel, so go for it and nominate somebody' kind of thing.

I am still wavering on the most noms = a win issue. I don't want to punish people for being popular (as much as the cool kids' lunch table makes me want to throw napkins soaked in milk at you, you know who you are. Hah. So anyway.), but at the same time it rubs me the wrong way.

I dig the idea of having all persons nominated listed and voting from ALL nominations, and maybe having two or three votes. That seems to be the best way to at least attempt to make the standings fair.

Argh. I don't know. My head hurts.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Isn't something entitled the reader's choice supposed to be for the readers? I think the "I like basketball" written 2300 times can be taken care in teh qualifications to be nominated.

But is that what we want this to be? If it is, I don't see the awards as having much value. If the finalists are chosen by the sheer number of nominees, then IMO the whole process will have no credibility because you're taking every quality filter out of the equation. If we want this to be a sheer popularity contest, then let's just have everyone release their hit counts and take the panel out of the equation that way.

Not all of y'all were frequent guests on pamie's old forum, but for those of you who were ... remember when Allison and I (and rowEn) were involved in that wacky "New Jag City" election thing? Pamie set up a quick question for people to vote ... and before the campaign ended we had more votes than registered users (and there were a lot of registered users). I'm afraid that if we make the nomination process similar, that's exactly what we'll get.

Is that really what people want? People pimping their sites on message boards, saying "everyone nominate this entry for the 'best comedic relationship rant' category, and winning because they got a hundred people on 3WA, MATH+1, 935 and every other message board to fill in their ballot, site unseen? And if we do, again, what's the point?

I'm the biggest proponent in the world of not letting panelists be finalists, and I'm sure that in the past, people have let their personal feelings decide who the finalists are. My question though, is this: Isn't that true for the nomination process as well? Don't people let their friendships sometimes determine who they nominate? How does not having a panel make the finalist selections eliminate bias from the equation?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Okay, it seems to me that the easy solution would be to have both.

Can you not give a "People's Choice Award" for most nominated, and then the "Award" to the chosen of the committee?

That seems to me to cover all bases, and recognizes the winner by numbers AND the winner by quality.

I will say, though, that it seems to me that having a "quality filter" sort of defeats the purpose. The complaints about the winner of the awards being chosen by their friends or by biased judges will remain so long as a small committee decide on the absolute winner. Quality writing is entirely subjective, and if I saw someone who wrote a journal entry that consisted of nothing more than:

Destiny's Child is booty. If you like them, you are booty, too.

I would laugh my ass off. To me, that is comedy. To someone else (namely almost everyone) it's dorky and not funny.

Awarding the popular vote takes away the disgruntlement over qualifying who is "good" and who is "not good".

And having both awards would, I think, please the masses.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


I will say, though, that it seems to me that having a "quality filter" sort of defeats the purpose. The complaints about the winner of the awards being chosen by their friends or by biased judges will remain so long as a small committee decide on the absolute winner.

That's not what I'm saying. The winner should definitely be the candidate with the most votes, once the five finalists are selected and the ballot released.

I'm just saying that the finalists themselves should not be determined strictly based on who got the most nominations.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


Mike, I'm totally with you on the finalists ballot thing, but far away from you on the nominations thing. Frankly, though, my butt won't be chapped either way it goes.

And I think you're keen.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2001


"Don't people let their friendships sometimes determine who they nominate? How does not having a panel make the finalist selections eliminate bias from the equation? "

Because there is a difference between me, a reader, nominating my friend and me, a panelist, nominating my friend and then using my vote as a panelist to insure that my friend becomes a finalist.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001


I don't know that I agree with that.

In a Readers Choice Award where the winner is the one with the most nominations -- where both the nomination and the finalist voting are based solely on popular support -- I can rig the election for my friend without even having to put up the pretense of being unbiased (I have an awful lot of e-mail addresses I can vote from). At least a panelist has to face the music at some point.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001


It would be fairly easy to stop ballot box stuffing by logging IP addies, something that would be a good idea anyway. It wouldn't matter how many email addresses you had, if you could only vote once from your machine.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

I'm all about these awards happening - I definitely agree about the IP being accounted for - although this can't stop ballot stuffing entirely since they did this for the online karaoke contest and 'still' there was some sketchy schtuff goin' down with that. if someone realllly wants to do it, they will.

of course, regardless, I think this'll get more people voting - those that don't have journals and the like. I have a journal (not a very popular one at that which I admit makes me abit unhappy. am I not funny or interesting enough? *sniff*) and must admit I don't really vote often for the diarist awards, buuut I'd still like to see how this one turns out.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001


See, you had to go and reveal my technical ignorance. How fair is that?!

Hah.

I care far too much about this for someone who now can't update until I figure out my FTP issues. but...

I still think a panel's a good idea. I envision this as pretty similar to the diarist awards, but without the requirement that the voter be a journaller. And I feel very strongly that if the finalists are solely determined by the number of nominations the entry gets, then we might as well just have people announce their hit counts and give the awards that way, since that would have an equal amount of credibility.

If panelists making sure their friends are finalists is such a concern, than it would be a good idea to increase the number of finalists to five, seven or whatever. That way, it couldn't be rigged without things being ridiculously obvious. But I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Seriously, y'all ... what if we had Readers Choice Awards, sans panel, back in the days of pamie's forum with its 2000 users, a bunch of whom (like me) would post there many, many times a day? I would have posted "Hey, nominate my entry from January 7 for best comedic entry." And someone else who posted a lot would have said "Yeah, and vote for my entry from March 5 for best drama." And a third person chimes in with "Nominate me for best audio-visual design!"

All three would have a pretty good chance of winning, not because we were good, or even necessarily popular for our journals, but because we happened to frequent a place with a lot of likely voters so we'd get a crapload of nominations.

If that happens, the awards are over before they even start. There has to be a mechanism where the awards are more than a measure of who can pimp themeselves and their site the best, or what's the point?

I don't know. It's very late and I'm talking in circles. Let me know if this makes any sense at all.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001


IP logging only works for machines with a dedicated IP number, ie. someone with a broadband connection. For folks who dial in to an ISP, they get assigned a different IP every time. Vote, log out, log in, vote, log out, log in...

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

Not all of y'all were frequent guests on pamie's old forum, but for those of you who were ... remember when Allison and I (and rowEn) were involved in that wacky "New Jag City" election thing? .

Hey wait a minute! What did you do for New Jag City? NOTHING! You must have ran for the interns.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001


I'd like to hear what non-journalling readers think. . . .

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2001

I would like to say that I did no such stuffing at the New Jag city Elections, and my throwing in with Mike was perfectly legal and not against any rules. Really.

*still wondering who now has the Live Nudes sign*

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2001


*ahem* is it bad that I pimped the election on my website therefore giving outsiders a chance to vote? muahahahah!!!

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2001

Another concern about the IP thing -- a coworker and I both read online journals from work, and we would reflect the same IP address from our company's firewall. So which one of us would get to vote?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

To those in the know: Any progress reports to share?

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Hey everyone -- If you haven't been keeping up with the threads, there's much chat about getting moving on the long-discussed "Reader's Choice Awards."

In an attempt to organize the discussion, I'm trying to pool everyone's names, etc., so I can get as many people together as possible for a "live chat."

The chances are great that there will be two or three held.

In that light, if you want to take part in the discussion, email me with your name, email, journal address and name, that is if you have a journal; times in the next two weeks that work for you as far as a chat time is concerned, as well as your prefered method of chat.

(For example, do you prefer AOL IM or MSN?)

I will contact everyone who is interested in joining the chat within the next two weeks.

Hope to hear from the whole lot of ya!

(I didn't see THIS thread earlier and posted this in Diarist Awards. Mea Culpas, I suck! Could the powers that be delete the extraneous entry in the other thread?)

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2002


I'm the chattingest person on the planet.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2002

Then come and join the chat!!

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2002

Erin, has the date/time been set yet? I haven't gotten any emails.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 2002

Nope -- if you've given me your info, you'll get an email with all the info this week. Probably Wednesday.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2002

Moderation questions? read the FAQ