I went to the Clitorides Award page to vote on my favorite stories. In most of the categories, I had only read one or two of the stories and wasn't interested in reading the others. I tried to vote my one or two selections, but when I clicked Vote, I received the message that I had to vote on three stories.
Why do I have to vote on three stories? What is wrong with voting on just one story?
I had the same problem and made the choice to not vote in those categories. Now some stories lost my vote because I didn't read any of the other stories in those categories and thus couldn't vote that category.
Why do I have to vote on three stories? What is wrong with voting on just one story?
The whole reason for the clitorides is to encourage reading more and highlight good stories. That's why the voting period is 61 days.
That's why the voting period is 61 days.
I would like to participate within your guidelines so my vote counts, but I've other things to do than read stories that I am not interested in.
That leaves me two solutions: 1) don't vote, or 2) enter my one or two valid votes for the stories I've read and enjoyed, and if I need additional choices to total three, pick one or two at random even if I haven't read them.
That leaves me two solutions: 1) don't vote, or 2) enter my one or two valid votes for the stories I've read and enjoyed, and if I need additional choices to total three, pick one or two at random even if I haven't read them.
That's why I haven't voted in a while. There's only one choice for me, since I'm being forced (not encouraged, since there's no option) to read stories I have no interest in. It's unfortunate and distorts the actual results, because I'm sure some votes were garnered blindly just to satisfy the requirements, not because they earned them.
Some categories don't even HAVE three choices, but that's okay then?
By and large I believe these sites are handled fairly, but this is definitely not equitable, so I can't participate - not that anyone cares what my opinion is, since I'm not Premium - just part of The Great Unwashed Majority, a peasant with a modem.
The whole reason for the clitorides is to encourage reading more and highlight good stories. That's why the voting period is 61 days.
So if a category has 10 nominations from which I have read 2 I have to read the other 8 nominations just so I can give a relevant vote? There's a reason I haven't read those other 8 and don't have them on my to-read list. For me that results in skipping the category for voting. Even with 61 days (which is way too long in my opinion) I doubt many readers will read nominations because of the nomination. These stories/authors are nominated so there is a group of readers that have read them, but that doesn't mean every reader who is willing to vote has. Just randomly choosing a third vote pollutes the results and probably only benefits the one at the top.
Even with 61 days (which is way too long in my opinion)
I've got to disagree with you there. With 10 Epic Stories and 10 Long Stories 61 days seems to be hardly enough time. If you want to be a dillegent reader and voter.
But I do think that I should be allowed to cast just one or two votes if that is all that I wish. In this years competition in one of the categories I only found two good stories. I did read or start to read all of the others and found them to be unworthy of my vote.
But I do think that I should be allowed to cast just one or two votes if that is all that I wish.
Very common request. Will not happen.
The point of voting on awards is to pick the best of the nominees. Not to simply indicate that you've read one story and liked it.
Your vote is completely useless if you haven't read at least one more story than the minimum. So for three positions out of 10 finalists, ideally, you read all 10 and then cast a vote. Or at minimum read 4 stories and cast your vote on 3. If there are less nominees than 5, then read all of them to cast your vote.
How would you know if the one story you've read isn't the worst of the bunch? Your single vote (or two) would be very counter productive and it's better if you don't vote at all.
How would you know if the one story you've read isn't the worst of the bunch? Your single vote (or two) would be very counter productive and it's better if you don't vote at all.
I think you underestimate the variety in readers and especially the way in which they decide to read a story or not. You can't just state 'read 5 stories before you vote' because each readers selection process is different and might exclude most of the stories in a category for reading but leave one or two that he did read and liked. That in itself is a valid selection process for voting I would think and would justify only voting for those stories a reader has actually read, not being forced to read multiple other stories that he has no interest in based on his personal preferences.
being forced to read multiple other stories that he has no interest in based on his personal preferences.
Perhaps a more relevant question is how many voters vote for the one story/author they wish to, then vote for any two at random or because they recognise the author.
Unless Lazeez sets up a system to track each voter to ensure they have accessed every chapter of every story they vote for, plus at least one other, and detect that sufficient time elapsed to actually read each chapter of course.
Clit voters are no more likely to vote 'properly' than readers voting for any SoL story. It really does not matter who decides what a 'proper' vote is. Unless every vote is policed voters will do as they damn well please.
It would not surprise me if the current voting policy is actually detrimental to the desired outcome simply because those who abide by the rules but don't wish to read stories they don't want to just so as to follow the rules, don't vote at all for several categories.
It seems a shame that those whose votes are more considered and thoughtful are lost, whilst those who vote for their favourites regardless are counted.
Sadly there isn't a solution, no matter what Lazeez requires or requests, giving people a vote allows them the freedom to vote as they choose.
Perhaps a more relevant question is how many voters vote for the one story/author they wish to, then vote for any two at random or because they recognise the author.
I can see that happening. Me, I just skip the category when voting if I didn't at least read the three stories I vote for.
That in itself is a valid selection process for voting I would think and would justify only voting for those stories a reader has actually read, not being forced to read multiple other stories that he has no interest in based on his personal preferences.
That doesn't negate the fact that a vote for a single story or two out of ten contenders is less than useless, it's actually counter productive. It's better if the reader doesn't vote instead of casting a completely irrelevant vote.
The categories can't be narrow enough for every voter to want to read all of them simply on categories.
Any vote on one or two stories without full voting and without reading multiple entries is just noise that pollutes the signal that the awards are supposed to convey.
Let's say we have ten stories and ten voters and each voter votes on one of the stories only. Does any of those votes tell you anything about the whole group of 10 stories if each of those voters place that one story they voted for as the top story? Not really.
The voting system for the awards doesn't benefit from useless noise.
Let's say we have ten stories and ten voters and each voter votes on one of the stories only. Does any of those votes tell you anything about the whole group of 10 stories if each of those voters place that one story they voted for as the top story? Not really.
Lt's say we have ten stories and ten voters. Four abide by the rules, don't wish to read all the stories so they don't vote at all. Three follow the rules, read the stories and vote their 1st 2nd and 3rd choice. Three vote for their first choice plus two others at random because they have to cast three votes.
Is this scenario more beneficial to the awards?
Is this scenario more beneficial to the awards?
Not at all. It's as bad as 10 people voting for 10 stories with 1 casting one vote for a different story.
However, allowing a single vote is endorsing noise votes by the system.
At least with requiring 3 votes, a not insignificant portion of the voters will be encouraged to read more. At least those who follow the rules, their votes will be more valid. If the rules allow for 1 vote, then even those who abide by the rules may cast noise votes.
That doesn't negate the fact that a vote for a single story or two out of ten contenders is less than useless, it's actually counter productive. It's better if the reader doesn't vote instead of casting a completely irrelevant vote.
Agreed. That's how I vote. I skip the category if I haven't read enough of the stories to give three votes. I does result in just a few categories that I can vote on.
I understand your intention of getting readers to read more stories. However, it won't work as you intend.
A category has six stories. Ten readers have read one of the six stories and liked it. They have no interest in reading the other five stories. So, they each vote the story they liked as first place. Then pick two stories at random assigning them second and third place. The two random stories may be the poorest of the six stories. That skews the results, and the more people who do it, the more invalid the results.
The votes for those two random stories are far more useless and unproductive in my opinion as a single vote when three are required.
I refuse to be coerced into reading stories that I have no interest in reading, just so I can cast my single vote and two random votes. I also refuse to cast two random votes. Therefore, I don't participate in voting in the Clitorides.
Which is more productive? 1) Allowing me to cast my one vote. 2) Having me boycott the Clitorides.
Which is more productive? 1) Allowing me to cast my one vote. 2) Having me boycott the Clitorides.
To me casting one vote is worse that not voting.
I wouldn't say boycott, but if you ever find a category where you've read 4 or more then vote. Otherwise, I would rather you abstain.
To me casting one vote is worse that not voting.
I wouldn't say boycott, but if you ever find a category where you've read 4 or more then vote. Otherwise, I would rather you abstain.
I understand your reasoning but consider this too:
In multiple categories I have read one or two stories and liked them enough to award a vote for the Clitorides. Now I force myself to read a few of the other stories in those categories although my personal selection process would exclude them from reading. After reading I think they are below par, or even worse, I hate them. So now I have a category where I want to vote for one or two stories but I don't think any of the other stories deserves a vote from me. This might seem a very unique situation but I run into that problem with multiple categories. It's one of the reasons I vote in very few categories although I would have liked to vote in other categories where there are stories that do deserve my vote.
I think this is one of the reasons why people want to just vote for those they think that deserve their vote, even if that happens to be just a single story in a category. Currently you can either skip the category or you are forced to vote for stories that you don't think deserve a vote.
I wouldn't say boycott, but if you ever find a category where you've read 4 or more then vote. Otherwise, I would rather you abstain.
So how does that work for the categories with less than four stories? I think I saw (it was only a brief curious look) some of the categories had less than four stories, I think one just had the one story?
What happens if that one (or two, or three) story was dire? Are you not forcing the voters to, as Rep says, vote for something they don't wish to, or to abstain completely? What happens if everyone abstains (or the vast majority does) on one category? Does the category then become void with no 'winner' or in lieu of no votes, does that one story with no competition becomes 'the winner' by default rather than merit?
as Rep says, vote for something they don't wish to, or to abstain completely?
I agree with what you said. One minor item: there is a big difference between 'abstaining from voting' and boycott.
When abstaining from voting you can participate by nominating author's stories. Boycotting the Clitorides mean you don't nominate stories and don't vote. For all intents, you don't even log in to the website.
I will check to see if any of my stories have been nominated. If so, I am contemplating having the nomination removed from consideration.
Why do I have to vote on three stories? What is wrong with voting on just one story?
You should WANT to vote at last three times, if only to prove that you actually found the clits...
:)
prove that you actually found the clits...
The Clits are easy to find. It's a blessing the awards aren't called the 'G-Spot,' because then we could NEVER find them.
:)
Voting can be very difficult. In the USA in 2020 the candidates were Trump and Biden. I chose neither and didn't vote.
In the card game Bridge you can bid No Trump. I don't know a game where you can bid No Biden.
It's my understanding that Oscars voters don't have to view all the nominations for a particular category in order to vote.
On the other hand, I believe Booker Prize judges are supposed to read all the finalists.
AJ
On the other hand, I believe Booker Prize judges are supposed to read all the finalists.
I think the important word there is supposed... Looking at some of the previous winners, I sometimes wonder if any of the 'judges' have read the book. I can't think of any of the prize winners that I have managed to finish, most get returned to the library after the first chapter.
It's many years since the synopsis of any Booker finalist book has made me think I'd like to read it.
I suspect the judging is done by woke checklist :-(
AJ
