Improving the Awards Process

[KarenD]

I’m starting this thread as a spinoff of a discussion over at MATH+1 (http://mathplusone.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=490602852&f=323602662&m=501608414&p=1) about how the the Diarist awards process needs to be improved. The points that seem to be mentioned most frequently (there and other places I've seen it discussed) are:

1 - Administrators should not be eligible for awards. Panelists should not be eligible for awards during the quarter(s) they are serving on the panel.

2 - Nominees should have the option to decline before the nominations are posted.

I’m a new online journaler, so I don’t know the backstory on the awards. What are the obstacles to making these changes?

[Sara Astruc]

I think the final vote tallies for the winners should be posted for the panel to review internally.

Karen, I saw you mention that you "didn’t realize how many people think the awards are meaningless until after I was nominated for one this quarter." Please remember that many of us also think the awards are a fun way to recognize journals. I was happy and flattered to win mine. Don't take it to heart.

[sandy]

Hi, all :)

When I stumbled upon the discussion over at MATH+1, I became alarmed because I am one of the panelists-turned-finalists that have seemed to have upset people very much. As I stated over in the other forum, initially when I found out I had been nominated and was on the panel, too, I felt a little twinge of strangeness, afraid that someone would suspect me of some wrongdoing in some way. I didn't decline the nominations because the rule stated that one cannot do so. I figured it would end up okay because the nominations made me ineligible to vote in those categories, anyway. Boy, was I wrong! Being so new to the realm of OLJ and oblivious to previous discussions, I was unaware of the negative feelings harbored by many. Now, the strange twingey feeling has returned, and I wish I would have done things differently.

That being said...
I do think that panelists should be ineligible for finalist slots. One cannot actually be prohibited from nominated a panelist in the beginning of the process since I don't think the panelists are announced until the end of the nomination period, but I think that it should be no problem for the panel to take those nominations off of the list along with other ineligible sites. I would really be surprised if there were people out there who did not want to participate just because they could not win an award... I know that I wouldn't have any problem with it, and others have stated the same! Being on the panel IS an honor in itself and was a lot of fun, too.

In addition, I don't know the reason why people cannot decline their nominations. I would be interesting in hearing why this policy exists.

It seems that people also feel that there is an aura of favoritism or cliquishness associated with the DNA. Again, I didn't see anything of the sort during this past quarter on the panel. Perhaps I just haven't been around long enough. Maybe a different method of choosing panelists would seem more fair to the journalling public.

[edited because I always type like a maniac and hit "send" without proofreading my words]

[pzarquon]

Welcome all... this may very well be the most activity this board has seen since it was installed! This seems to be a catch-all, starter thread, but specific topics can be split off if discussion seems to be especially heavy on some of them. For starters:
Panel Eligibility - The panel process was revised to minimize the appearance of impropriety by forbidding panelists to participate in discussion or voting in categories in which they're nominated. Clearly this is a halfway measure, and it would make sense to simply make panelists ineligible for all awards during the quarter in which they serve. It'll be put to a vote (probably here, with a notice to the Advisory Group mailing list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diarist-awards) at Yahoo!) and a decision will be reached before the next panel is constituted.

Final Vote Tallies - This makes sense. The entire process is supposed to be fully transparent to the panel (by design, for example, the finalist vote is done directly on the panel list), and in the past, final vote tally databases were frequently uploaded to the panel file area for review and for archival purposes. We will make this standard procedure, beginning with this current, active quarter.

Panel Composition - It is, in part, first-come, first-served, but Jolene and I do try to ensure some diversity - new journalers and veterans, independents and diarists at Diaryland/Diary-X/Livejournal, men and women (male panelists are in short supply and tend to be spread out, for example). Jolene has already advocated including panel "demographics" (if not full-on bios) as part of our general (and forthcoming) notification process - if anyone thinks that's a good idea. And again, everyone who volunteers eventually serves -- usually immediately, these days, since again we haven't been as good at recruitment. I'm not sure how we could make this process more democratic.

I am proud of the rotating-panel basis of the Awards, even though it's one aspect that has its advantages and disadvantages to a fixed, "qualified" review group (a la the Academy). It's definitely an open area for a new awards program, although it's been suggested that we fold in a single, semi-independent 'Editor's Choice' or 'Critic's Circle' award as well.

Declining Nominations - This has been hotly debated many times, by several panels. I confess to being a strong advocate against allowing finalists to decline, and while the question was left to individual panels to decide, a strong precedent has been set to continue to not accommodate declinations. I think this deserves its own thread (http://www.diarist.net/active/showthread.php?s=&threadid=720).

[Suzyramble]

Originally posted by sandy
Hi, all :)

When I stumbled upon the discussion over at MATH+1, I became alarmed because I am one of the panelists-turned-finalists that have seemed to have upset people very much. As I stated over in the other forum, initially when I found out I had been nominated and was on the panel, too, I felt a little twinge of strangeness, afraid that someone would suspect me of some wrongdoing in some way. I didn't decline the nominations because the rule stated that one cannot do so. I figured it would end up okay because the nominations made me ineligible to vote in those categories, anyway. Boy, was I wrong! Being so new to the realm of OLJ and oblivious to previous discussions, I was unaware of the negative feelings harbored by many. Now, the strange twingey feeling has returned, and I wish I would have done things differently.

[edited because I always type like a maniac and hit "send" without proofreading my words]

Sandy, it has happened many times before, don't feel bad, hon. You just happened to be on the panel in a turbulent period.

[pzarquon]

We'll open voting tomorrow on proposed changes to the Diarist Awards procedures, discussed here in the forum and as posted to the Diarist Awards advisory group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diarist-awards/).

As the vote will be managed via Yahoo! Groups, now would be a good time to verify that your Yahoo! Groups account is active and allows you to access the page for this list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diarist-awards/), and that you can access the "Polls (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/diarist-awards/polls)" section.

For those interested, there you'll also be able to see the last three polls on changes, including one on panel eligibility that is the baby brother to a change being put forth now.

Voting will run for a week. Results are tallied and handled by the built-in "Polls" program. Feel free to post or e-mail me if you have any questions!

[Jolene]

Originally posted by pzarquon
b
For those interested, there you'll also be able to see the last three polls on changes, including one on panel eligibility that is the baby brother to a change being put forth now.


Baby Brother? It's basically the same damn thing.

Damn. Now I wish that I had BOTHERED to look up the other issues that I'd mentioned not remembering being voted on, becuase I would have seen that it was the same exact issue that we've been arguing about all of this time.

[pzarquon]

Baby Brother? It's basically the same damn thing.I think it's pretty neat, in a way, 'cause obviously things have evolved.

At the time, the decision reached was to leave panel members eligible, but not to vote in the categories in which they're nominated (prior to that they could, just not for themselves). Rendering them entirely ineligible was an option in the vote, but not the preferred one.

Two years down the line, we're re-addressing the question, and from sentiments expressed, it seems total ineligibility is now the advocated policy.

[krystyn]

Just in case you haven't hopped over to the Y! group for the diarist awards, the two polls currently accepting votes regarding notification of nominated journals and ineligibility of panel and advisory members ends tomorrow.

So, if you were thinking about voting and simply haven't done it yet, the time is ripe.

[pzarquon]

Thanks, krystyn, for the reminder. Voting closed on Saturday. As a result, the following changes have been made to the Diarist Awards process:
Panel members are ineligible for awards during the quarter in which they serve.
Award coordinators are ineligible for all awards.
Eligible nominees will be notified by the panel and given the opportunity to comment (on categorization or desire not to be considered).
The posted award process (http://www.diarist.net/awards/process.html) and panel guide (http://www.diarist.net/awards/panelguide.html) have been updated to reflect these changes (let me know if I missed anything). Also, that last point required small adjustments to the award calendar (http://www.diarist.net/awards/calendar.html).

We're going to reverify the interest of people who've volunteered to serve on the panel prior to the eligibility change... but even if there are no dropouts we could always use more volunteers. Please drop us a line (webmaster@diarist.net?subject=panel) if you're interested!

[ejshea]

Hi Ryan --

Just to clarify -- if someone wants to decline the nomination, as long as they tell you or whomever on the panel that they don't want it, their wish will be granted, so to speak.

Is this correct?

Thanks!

[Rob]

Originally posted by pzarquon
Eligible nominees will be notified by the panel and given the opportunity to comment (on categorization or desire not to be considered).

Comment? Or decline?

[pzarquon]

Originally posted by ejshea
Is this correct?Correct. I did want to make it clear, however, that any manner of response is welcome.

Also, to a question I received via e-mail, I should also reassure folks that notifications of nominations will not reveal the identity of who did the nominating. :) That information, like the voting rolls, is confidential to the panel.