Saturday, June 02, 2007

Current Issues in the Awards


22:08, London time:
Suppose we'd better start thinking about what we'll actually award. Winner, yes. Nominee, yes. Placegetter? Your comments?

20:39, London time:
Not much to report, really. Voting continues.

12:53, London time:
Various issues:

1] Wednesday poll close, at 19:00, London time, as scheduled. There has been overwhelming opposition to closing early this evening, Sunday.

2] Vote targetting. Certain people seem to be focussing on one nominee and hitting that nominee as often as allowed. That means, if they're coordinated, different computers will give different re-vote times.

Nothing wrong with the tactic, if it is separate people doing it [immediate friends and family] but we come back to the old story. If you can call on a whole office to vote [one commenter on one of the nominee's sites said she'd do that], then I can do that too. I could have organized about 250 to 350 people to hit my five categories twice a day on Friday and I can again on Wednesday.

I shan't do it though, for the reason mentioned by Mr. Eugenides in the comments here.

3] Late vote surge in the last few hours on Wednesday - I'm expecting all sorts of tactical voting on Wednesday from office computers and though it's within the rules, it's not within the spirit. I have no plans to do this, even though I could easily counter their surge with sheer numbers. If it happens, Blogpower will take this into account when it has its Thursday evening scrutineering meeting, before announcing final winners.

08:17, London time: One to watch. One of the most enjoyable categories currently is Category 19: Best Post. Is this one ever hot! Check it out.

06:01, London time, Sunday:
The last post entitled "Current Issues" is to be found below the 20 categories here. All comments have now been continued on to this "working post".

Issues today so far:

1] Lord Nazh has come in delightfully late to the discussion and poses the question we've been struggling with these past few days:
"Trying to figure out why we have a problem with someone getting others to vote for them in a poll that is based on .... votes o.O"
On the surface, nothing. But underneath, most people say that while the big guns make no secret of utilizing their forces to vote as often as is legal, one particular group is claiming they're not doing this but, in fact, are being supported by a largish political party and that this is producing a skewed result.

They hotly deny this and one member claimed on one nominee's blog yesterday that these "piddling insignificant awards" are of no interest to the party at all.

They also say that the nominee in question is quite loved by a large number of people, has no affiliations to this party at all, is in fact a supporter of a different party and is being unfairly vilified in these awards by hearsay and by the administrator of the awards, namely me, by allowing this discussion to take place without right of reply and for running editorials such as this one, discussing a particular candidate publicly but not discussing others.

They might be right. Who knows? The issue will not be resolved until after Wednesday but that's basically it for now, in a nutshell.

2] In the awards themselves, a strong showing by certain nominees and time to look at the question one blogger raised last evening. How much power can you use in awards such as these? When the total votes are not likely to be over 500 and any one of us could marshall ten friends to vote twice daily for seven days, what does one do?

As Not Saussure said: "The important thing is being nominated by one's peers." I agree and that's why the nominations phase was so drawn out and why we have produced two nominations banners but haven't even decided on a winners' banner yet.

You'll say "easy for you to say, where you're placed" but it was where I came in the nominations which really meant something to me. Because these couldn't be falsified or skewed. They stand there and though detractors will say these are such tiny awards, so what? What came in was what came in. My workplace was particularly interested in my nomination in Category 11 but I was most personally proud of 3 and 18.

I know many of you were pleased that your peers nominated you.

3] My friends over here will be reading this and therefore will know how truthful I'm being or not. My own voting strategy changes to suit the circumstances. I'm trusting my personal friends will personally click for me but I've actually stopped doing it for now.

Instead, I'm concentrating all my energies on Categories 6, 10 and 12, where at least three people are getting my votes every time I'm allowed to re-vote. These categories are being hotly contested and I see many other people are also interested.

Also looking anxiously at Category 2 where personal friends are vying and that's uncomfortable for me. Category 1 runs itself - I don't bother voting there now - it's interesting though. I don't vote in 13 and 20 at all. Just thought you might like to know, given my administrative role.


Mr Eugenides said...

You see, I look at it a different way. I suppose if I put up another post saying "go and vote for me, please!", thirty votes might indeed appear next to my name - but, again, what would be the point?

For the same reason, I have not (after my initial post on the subject) asked anyone to vote for me.

I prefer not to do this; I'd like to win an award, but of more interest is to see what other people think. If I win one of my categories - which is still possible - I'd feel a little more satisfaction knowing that my 5-vote margin wasn't because my brother had faithfully logged on every day to vote for me.

Still, each to his own. By the looks of things, the votes in some of the categories are beginning to even themselves out.

james higham said...

...I'd like to win an award, but of more interest is to see what other people think. If I win one of my categories - which is still possible - I'd feel a little more satisfaction knowing that my 5-vote margin wasn't because my brother had faithfully logged on every day to vote for me...

Yes, yes and yes again. That's it in a nutshell - everything I was trying to say.

Mr. E, I was in the process of shortening the post whilst you were in the process of commenting. You'll see that the essence of the post is the same now; it's just less wordy than before.

Not Saussure said...

As is so frequently the case, I concur with Mr Eugenides. So, it would seem by their practice, do almost all the other participants.

Awards like these are a harmless bit of entertainment which it's very gratifying to win -- but the gratification is knowing you've won because others think you ought to rather than because you've been able to nag your friends or fellow party members into turning out for you.

I also think that canvassing by larger blogs (in which I include myself, at least in Blogpower terms) or organising claques of supporters is completely inappropriate because Blogpower was set up, at least in part, for the mutual help and encouragement of smaller blogs that can't turn out the block votes in the way some others could if they chose.

Colin Campbell said...

Yes vote stacking would not be consistent with the aims and goals of that first Blogpower Post.

This is more interesting than a real election. We are all in touch with the human element and there is not too much at stake.

The same issues that drive political high jinks are still in place. Greed, ego, selfishness and the like.

At least there is no money at stake.

All good clean fun and a chance to visit some excellent blogs.

james higham said...

...At least there is no money at stake...

The cheque's in the mail, Colin. It will buy you a beer or two.

Daily Referendum said...


I'm really enjoying the awards. I've already ordered some posters for next year's. Should we set a upper limit on campaign funds?

youdontknowme said...

Is it still 1 vote per day?