Is Every Quarter Too Much?

[jon-jon]

It's pretty clear that running a cycle of the Diarist Awards is a lot of work, and that each quarter, there are hundreds of nominations to consider and hundreds of votes to tally.

I've always wondered: why every quarter?

Beginning the new award cycle just as the old one has ended seems, in my opinion, to dilute the power/prestige of the awards.

The Diarist world is growing. Exponentially. It's getting far bigger than Diarist.net; and with the infiltration and cross-pollenation of blogs, it's hard to say what a diary even is.

It's pretty clear that our associations need to grow as well.

Why not take a huge quarterly load off Ryan, Jolene, and the board, and do this big shin-dig once a year? Why not work toward merging the Awards with JournalCon?

Of course, I'm only volunteering ideas, not work. Not yet. But doesn't it seem to make sense that the Awards would eventually become an annual event?

Jon-Jon
http://jonjondiaries.com

P.S. --- if this thread has been done before, my apologies. It's being done again now.

[ejshea]

I think this is a wonderful suggestion -- especially when you consider all of the points you made. I think people have suggested it before, but only in passing.

[jenwade]

I think switching to an annual award is a good idea. I've always thought that quarterly awards were a bit excessive. Or maybe there could be a compromise--quarterly entry awards and annual site awards?

The idea of merging the awards with JournalCon is an interesting one. On the one hand, I like the fact that it would give more of a "purpose" to JournalCon (as one of this year's JC organizers, I've struggled quite a bit with the concept of why we're doing this). On the other hand, I worry that presenting awards in the flesh could engender bitterness--I think it's inevitable that some subset of people who travel to JournalCon for the awards ceremony and then lose will be bitter, and a few individuals with a bad attitude could put a pall on the entire event.

[KarenD]

An annual award cycle makes a lot of sense. If that comes to pass, I'd like to see the number of finalists for each award increase from 3 to 5. Since the awards would cover a longer time period, it seems there'd be enough quality entries/sites to fill out a larger field, and more journals would benefit from the awards traffic than if the finalist lists were kept as short as they are now.

I'd like to see the awards stay separate from JournalCon. That way people can continue to participate in both the awards and JC or choose one or the other depending on their preferences.

Edited for spelling.

[pineapple]

I agree that merging the DNA with JournalCon is an idea worth mulling -- but I also think that ultimately it would harm both entities.

Plus, if I might speak quite frankly (and step on toes, I'm sure), I don't see how combining an event that Ryan has control of with an awards system that Ryan has control of serves the best interest of anyone in the "community."

How could it lead to anything but more of this same, just further down the line?

[jenwade]

Just for the sake of clarity, I want to say that I don't think it's accurate to say that Ryan "controls" JournalCon. He oversees the location voting process, but beyond that, he has not exercised any kind of control over this year's event at all, beyond providing advice to us at our request. And frankly, even if he wanted to control it, I don't really see how he could--he has no leverage with the host committee.

[xeney]

Yep. This year's JournalCon is 'controlled' by a local committee and a nonprofit corporation (the directors of which are members of the local committee). Next year's JournalCon will be controlled by someone else entirely. (Thank Go... hey, did I say that out loud?)

[Mary Hannah]

What about every six months? I feel like a year is *too* long of a time period, personally.

[jon-jon]

You know, I had no idea that Ryan had his fingers in so many pies! His fingers must taste really good.

Okay, I wrote that out loud.

Thought #1:
I think that the quarterly entry award / yearly site award idea made by JenWade is fantastic, as is increasing the finalist pool from 3 to 5 as suggested by Karen D. This show is getting bigger and bigger, and some administrative changes might be in order.

Thought #2:
If the Diarist Awards stay separate from JournalCon, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt anything --- I just don't know that it would help anything either. It seems like the big objection is that there is similar leadership in both groups. Could there be ways to change that? I'd love to be involved in that kind of transition.

Thought #3:
I want to become more involved in these discussions and events than I currently am. Could someone throw me a rope to hang myself with?

Cheers,

Jon-Jon
http://jonjondiaries.com

[pzarquon]

I think switching to an annual award is a good idea. I've always thought that quarterly awards were a bit excessive. Or maybe there could be a compromise--quarterly entry awards and annual site awards?If we moved away from a quarterly system, I'd think this would be a great mix.

The reason the awards were set to be given quarterly was, essentially, "internet time." Beyond the already short life-expectancy of any new journal, the timeliness and wonderfulness and popularity of a great site, a great idea, a great experiment

The counterpoint is of course that we might not miss "flash-in-the-pan" sites all that much. But I couldn't shake the sense that we could miss some incredible stuff if the period of eligibility was too long. Three months is a long time, and keep in mind that the evaluation period adds another month and a half to that. As it is, if a site was at its peak (or entry written) in early January, the earliest it can be reviewed by the panel is late April, and voted on in May.

Also, as a nominator myself, it's already hard to remember, come nominations time, all the great sites and entries I've visited in that period. Trying to track them (or even just sites) over six months or a year? I wonder what I'd miss.

Finally, apart from the "Legacy Award" (the best example of a category that's pushing its luck as a quarterly award), I think there's just too much good stuff out there. The fact that we get a lot of repeat nominees doesn't mean web journals as a whole suck... I think it means we have to work harder to be more inclusive.

Edited to add that I also don't think trying to merge the awards with JournalCon would work. Both are great programs, but I'd rather both thrive (or fade) on their individual merits. This might've been a tough year for the awards, for example, but JournalCon 2002 is looking mighty strong.

Besides... that would mean we'd have to engrave and hand out actual awards! Next thing we know, Joan Rivers will come calling.

[pineapple]

Originally posted by jenwade
I don't think it's accurate to say that Ryan "controls" JournalCon. He oversees the location voting process...

I should clarify: in the experience that I had as part of a committee bidding to host JournalCon, there was more control by one person over that process than I thought equitable to all involved. Again, in my opinion, it comes back to the appearance of impropriety.

This is not sour grapes over Austin not being chosen, regardless of how it might seem -- before voting even began I was disappointed in how the process was managed and organized, and was sure to share that opinion to many both in person, via e-mails and online before the voting began so as not to demonstrate any conflict of interest.

And while I don't have the pages saved, at one time I know that Jolene was listed as a member of a bidding committee, and I was pretty sure Ryan was too.

As with the Awards - how hard is it to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

[xeney]

I can understand that feeling of impropriety and I'm of mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I can completely see your point, especially as there have been allegations in the past of ballot-stuffing (although I'm not sure that was by the bid committee as opposed to some locals who didn't want to travel).

On the other hand, I continue to remain mystified as to why anyone would cheat in order to have the honor of doing a hell of a lot of work and opening themselves up for big criticism if it all falls apart. I just have a hard time imagining that, and I think it's a different issue entirely than making panelists and the permanent advisors ineligible for Diarist awards.

But maybe I'm naive.

[jenwade]

Jolene and Ryan were both listed on the subsequently-withdrawn Las Vegas bid. I agree that Ryan should not have been on a bid committee if he was going to oversee the voting process (and given the flak he got for this, I seriously doubt he'll do it again). Jolene, on the other hand, has nothing to do with JournalCon as far as I know, so I don't see why her being on a bid would be a problem.

[pineapple]

Beth, I definitely don't think you are naive. Having worked in tourism and politics, and helped plan conventions and conferences for both, I know that y'all are busting your asses with everything that is going into JournalCon, and I admire it all. I've only helped with big events, and still been flabbergasted at the sheer amount of work. I don't want it to seem like I'm equating what goes into the two (JCon and DNA) -- they are apples and oranges.

The essence of my problem has been, from the beginning (when I started the fracas up for at MATH+1 two weeks ago -- or renewed the fracas, I should say, since I know that many long before me have posed the same questions / comments), the conflict of interest.

It's just really never that difficult to create a situation where no one can rightfully point a finger or wonder if everything was done above board or perceive personal bias and / or self-promotion or nepotism or politics. Those things will always take place -- but they shouldn't be inherent in the system.

[edited to direct my first comment to Beth since I took too long to post and didn't follow her]

[pineapple]

Originally posted by jenwade
Jolene, on the other hand, has nothing to do with JournalCon as far as I know, so I don't see why her being on a bid would be a problem.

Doesn't Jolene run the awards? I know that if I was a writer with no vested interest in actually attending the conference (therefore the location didn't matter to me), I'd sure vote for, and publicly support on the many forums, the city where the host committee might feel favorably toward me in the future if I really wanted a DNA.

Again, I know that this isn't how it works... it's the perception. Jolene is tied to Ryan through DNA; Ryan owns the JournalCon URL and declares the winning bid. I was actually told verbatim last fall that Ryan owns Diarist.Net and he owns JournalCon and that whatever he wants for the community is how it will go.

Whether any or all or none of that statement is true, that's the message that is out there for a lot of people.

[jenwade]

If you voted for a JournalCon city based on what you thought Jolene wanted in order to curry favor with her, then it was a wasted vote, because Jolene didn't see the results. It was made very clear before this year's vote that the only people who are supposed to see that information are Ryan and one representative from each of the bid committees (on our committee, that person was Beth, since I was out of town when the votes were tallied).

I definitely think it's going to be difficult to remove the perception of impropriety when people keep repeating things about Ryan and Jolene that simply aren't true. I do think that people in all positions of power in the community should be held accountable for their own actions, but I think it's stretching a bit far to hold them accountable for the rumors and speculation that other people circulate about them.

[pineapple]

Originally posted by jenwade
If you voted for a JournalCon city based on what you thought Jolene wanted in order to curry favor with her, then it was a wasted vote, because Jolene didn't see the results. It was made very clear before this year's vote that the only people who are supposed to see that information are Ryan and one representative from each of the bid committees (on our committee, that person was Beth, since I was out of town when the votes were tallied).

I maybe wasn't clear enough in my earlier comments -- I want to re-emphasize that I was answering the question of a possible reason that Jolene could have been perceived to be associated with JournalCon. I wouldn't have any way of knowing why people do or do not vote.

I definitely think it's going to be difficult to remove the perception of impropriety when people keep repeating things about Ryan and Jolene that simply aren't true. I do think that people in all positions of power in the community should be held accountable for their own actions, but I think it's stretching a bit far to hold them accountable for the rumors and speculation that other people circulate about them.

I have to respectfully disagree. Rumors do not create the appearance of impropriety -- improper actions do. I believe enough in the rational thinking of the people involved in this discussion, as well as the changing nature of the "community", to say that this would hardly be a continuing dialogue (every three months for several years) if all that made its core were rumors and gossip.

Whether the person that made the statement to me about Ryan chooses to get involved in this discussion is not up to me. But, I am a skeptical person who takes most things with a grain of salt, and there was not one thing about the conversation that gave me pause or reason to doubt. There still isn't today.

[jenwade]

Rumors do not create the appearance of impropriety -- improper actions do.

[jenwade]

Doh, I am a UBB idiot. I was trying to quote above, not post.

What I wanted to say was that what you said above seems to contradict itself. Your friend's statement that Ryan rules JournalCon with an iron fist and whatever he wants goes is a rumor, not a fact. When you use that as a basis to justify your arguments, you are not judging him by his actions, you're judging him by what other people say.

[pineapple]

Yeah, I definitely haven't been clear enough. The statement made to me affects only my opinion, and everybody has one of those. I don't know Ryan, I don't know Jolene, and I have only been around a year -- I am aware that my opinion is uninformed compared to some.

My arguments for why the current systems are flawed is in their structure, not in the actions of any one person, or statements by others.

Sorry if I was confusing about that.

[xeney]

Originally posted by pineapple
...this would hardly be a continuing dialogue (every three months for several years) if all that made its core were rumors and gossip...

Has this actually come up every three months for several years? The first I ever heard of accusations of impropriety in the Diarist Awards was last year, quarter three. There was regular discussion of whether the awards were stupid, but that was the first time I ever heard anyone suggest that someone was cheating. And I haven't actually heard it since, except in this vaguely rumored way that kind of allows everyone to believe that there's a whole bunch of fire behind the smoke.

(I know there was an incident further back where a panel chose an entry that wasn't actually eligible, but that was pretty clearly carelessness, not cheating.)

[pineapple]

That's an excellent question. I know that on different boards I've read different things (about this flap in that year, that flap way back when, whatever), but I definitely would prefer to hear from Ryan or Jolene as to what the actual history/timeline of complaints/problems has been.

Maybe this is all smoke, no fire -- just a few squeaky wheels getting the grease?

[pzarquon]

I definitely would prefer to hear from Ryan or Jolene as to what the actual history/timeline of complaints/problems has been. Maybe this is all smoke, no fire -- just a few squeaky wheels getting the grease?While now this thread has probably overflowed into the realm of the existing "Ryan/Jolene (http://www.diarist.net/active/showthread.php?s=&threadid=734)" thread (rather than a discussion of our quarterly calendar), I'll venture a reply.

I would probably be the last person who could provide you with a reliable "timeline" of complaints and problems. I'll say right out it hasn't been an insignificant amount. But I will also say there are definitely other individuals who have been carefully tracking these things for me for years. :)

Part of the problem, and I hope it's clear here even without my stupidly pointing it out, is that there are constant references to "out there" - the great nebulous realm of All Things Journal, debates and discussions about the awards, JournalCon, the community, and me that have taken place in seemingly every forum, guestbook, and chatroom imaginable. Given my failure to find and be responsive to these, and given the nature of any online community, I think reports of my evil nature have been somewhat magnified.

That's not to say I'm not at least a little evil.

Pineapple, thank you for being so active in this, and helping me understand how things look from the perspective of someone who hasn't been as embroiled in The Community for years and years. I have to admit, concentrated in a list, my record doesn't much better than that of your average politician...
I was Kat, fictional founder of Open Pages and Diary-L, and to say that revelation didn't cause a great deal of hurt would be an understatement.
I was a finalist for and won (my own) Legacy Award, obviously the biggest example of why our eligibility controls were deemed worthless.
I tried to bring the first JournalCon to Chicago, and was (at first!) miffed when it went to Pittsburgh - I've apologized ever since for the sour grapes, and of course, I helped Dreama organize that gathering in the end.
Not learning my lesson, I agreed to help put together a bid for Las Vegas for this year. The apparent bias eventually prompted the Las Vegas team to withdraw... something I deeply regret.
As discussed here, we've refused to allow people to decline nominations, causing some pain, and the panel has (through honest mistakes) nominated sites/entries that were later determined to be ineligible. (The uproar following that mistake led to the most recent revision to the awards process, which spells out future contingencies.)
And since it was mentioned here (http://www.diarist.net/active/showthread.php?s=&threadid=724), I'll include that Jolene was publicly thrilled when a friend was nominated, and when a friend won an award, and jumped the gun on her site before formal notifications went out.
And I'm sure there are more examples of where I've rubbed folks the wrong way, or done something boneheaded. Speaking only for myself, some of the above points (my JournalCon gaffes in particular) illustrate what I think my biggest failing is: I love to coordinate and build on behalf of The Community, but have a hard time not being a part of it as well.

The message from critics has been clear: I can't have it both ways. I'm learning that, albeit slowly.

And a fundamental question is, given both positives and negatives, if I'm ever going to be able to regain the trust of all journaldom. I'd like to hope so, but we've also heard from folks who think otherwise.

[xeney]

I was a finalist for and won (my own) Legacy Award, obviously the biggest example of why our eligibility controls were deemed worthless.

How do you figure that that was the biggest example? Rob and I were the other two nominees for the award that quarter, and we both publicly stated that we thought you deserved to win. I for one voted for you.

Don't believe me, look here (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003cJ7) on my old Greenspun forum. (The password is "closed," and if the direct link takes you to a really ugly split screen like it sometimes does, try going here first (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Xeney) and logging in. The thread is under "Meta, Meta, Meta," and it's called "Diarist Awards, 2000 Quarter Two: Discuss.")

It wasn't controversial then; it's only controversial now in retrospect.

Edited because I actually reread that old thread: it was controversial, but only with people who hated ME. Not you.

[ejshea]

Is this REALLY that controversial NOW?

Mea culpas, Beth, but I just went into your old forum and it seems like the same kind of dicussion.

Everyone starts ON TOPIC then wanders off to parts unknown, bickering and biting. With the exception of some of the people and the dates, it MIRRORS this discussion.

And I think seeing things like THAT are why some people don't feel like bothering to voice opinions or do anything to change the awards. Not that such a decision is wrong or right, of course. It's just an observation.

[xeney]

I wasn't saying that the awards haven't always caused bickering. I was saying that the idea that they are rigged or unfair or reeking of impropriety because of Ryan's nomination or Jolene's involvement is a pretty new claim; until a couple of quarters ago, I never heard that argument. I don't recall anyone raising it when Ryan was nominated that quarter.

[pineapple]

Originally posted by pzarquon

I love to coordinate and build on behalf of The Community, but have a hard time not being a part of it as well.

I think this is very understandable. I would venture that most people in this community are a part of it because they enjoy the activities and choose to be a part (vs. joining the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, because one's job requires it). I don't think there is anyone who could say with certainty that they could have done a better job themselves -- hindsight is always 20/20, especially from others.

I worry that some part of my part of this dialogue will be perceived as a personal attack -- either on Beth or Jen or Ryan or Jolene or the JCon '02 team or a partridge in a pear tree. I hope if anyone feels that way they will let me know, because it's not my intent -- I just play devil's advocate to a fault, and forget to convey that I'm not as emotionally invested as it might appear.

[ejshea]

OK -- that wasn't my point, either.

Yeah -- I knew I should have left my original disclaimer up that I wasn't addressing Beth, her point, what-have-you. I only "mea-culp-ed" myself to you, Beth, because I visited your forum and went lurking around in the thread.

I was just observing that it seems that nothing -- no matter the topic -- is truly controversial when it comes to the DNA discussion b/c it all starts off innocently then wanders off and escapes from the Realm of Sanity.

I wasn't succinctly addressing your point, Beth. Just observing the tone of that old thread of yours and how similar they seem to be. Should have clarified.

[Rob]

Originally posted by xeney
Don't believe me, look here (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003cJ7) on my old Greenspun forum. (The password is "closed," and if the direct link takes you to a really ugly split screen like it sometimes does, try going here first (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Xeney) and logging in. The thread is under "Meta, Meta, Meta," and it's called "Diarist Awards, 2000 Quarter Two: Discuss.")

It wasn't controversial then; it's only controversial now in retrospect.

Wow. I forgot what a delight it was, arguing with nutty Mike Leung and Dave Van and his legion of fake names. That was a deightful trip down Memory Lane, assuming that Memory Lane is lined with broken bottles and rabid dogs.

[xeney]

I know the feeling, Rob. And I don't think anyone else should take the, uh, nuttier parts of that discussion as reflective of how the community as a whole felt about the awards. You can see where there are legitimate concerns and legitimate satisfaction with the process, and then you can see where it's just nutty and personal. I hope.

[Karen]

I dunno, I think "nutty and personal" may be just about the only phrase that accurately does cover the online journalling community as a whole.

[Jessamyn]

What about having awards less frequently, but allowing us to nominate on a near-perpetual basis?

Is there a reason why we couldn't all be submitting nominations throughout whatever the time frame in question is (quarter, third, half, year), rather than only during a week or two after that time period has ended?

If we were able to submit nominations any time we came across an entry or site (I think it applies to entries more than sites, but probably to sites, too) that we thought was worthy of one, wouldn't that get around the problem of having to remember those worthy entries & sites until the next opportunity to nominate came around?

Obviously, you would still have to have a start date and a cut off date at the beginning and end of each particular term, but I know that something like this would at least make it easier for me to nominate. (Because it's all about making things easier for ME.)

Has this idea been considered before?

[pzarquon]

Originally posted by Jessamyn
Has this idea been considered before?It has, though not recently. At one point I know it was suggested that nominations for a quarter be open during the quarter itself, which in some ways would make things easier for nominators (if not panelists).

Though it's been said before, part of the background of the current setup is based in large part on other award programs. While I'm sure there are examples of "nominate whenever" awards, I'm fairly confident for a variety of reasons there are specific and time-restricted "nomination periods." And I think it makes sense for the "evaluation period" - in this case, the full quarter - not overlap.

We are, in part, trying to make sure that entries posted (since the challenge in this case is usually for entries) toward the end of the period aren't at a disadvantage. Make sure all the options are "in," as it were, before sorting them out.

Another not insignificant reason is the "pat head, rub tummy" thing. With overlapping phases - nominations, evaluation, voting - I think participation and concentration on each important task would be threatened, both behind the scenes (panel) and publicly (nominators, voters). Though tedious at times, there's a simple elegance to "read now," "nominate now," and "vote now."

Still, I agree, the problem of remembering (as a nominator) all the good stuff you see is a big one. I keep a bookmark folder for 'em in MSIE. I also set up this forum (http://www.diarist.net/active/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=20) that people could also use for "safe keeping." Since great nominations do flow in, I'd love to hear how everyone else keeps track of great reads...

[Jessamyn]

Ok. I'm sure there are reasons it is the way it is. But this thread is about the possibility of changing the awards to a different time frame, and people have suggested yearly awards. I thought it was you, Ryan, who mentioned that you were concerned that if that happened, then entries from the beginning of the year would be overlooked, because there would be too much to keep track of. My suggestion was geared toward that concern - that if we could nominate during the year (or possibly not even ALL the time during the year, but for one week each month or for one month each quarter), instead of just at the very end, that entries from earlier in the year would have a better chance of being considered.

And I'm not sure I understand why the current system makes sure that entries posted toward the end of the period aren't at a disadvantage as much as it makes sure that entries posted toward the end of the period have a distinct ADvantage. Wouldn't allowing some sort of drawn-out nomination period allow for better recognition of entries & sites for work posted throughout the entire time period up for consideration?

[pzarquon]

Dammit. I think my webhost hiccuped and I lost my worded-slightly-better reply!But this thread is about the possibility of changing the awards to a different time frame, and people have suggested yearly awards... My suggestion was geared toward that concern...Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood. Clearly I was applying it to the current calendar. You're right, should the calendar be adjusted to be semi-annual or even annual, accommodations will have to be made somehow to accept nominations inside that period. It’s a challenge now to remember something for three months. Twelve months would seem downright impossible. And I'm not sure I understand why the current system makes sure that entries posted toward the end of the period aren't at a disadvantage as much as it makes sure that entries posted toward the end of the period have a distinct ADvantage.Perhaps this is all six of one, half a dozen of the other (i.e. there’ll be issues no matter where you put the start and end pegs), but the reason I’m concerned about overlapping or aligning the eligibility period and nomination period is that sites/entries published toward the end of the eligibility-nomination period have less of a chance of being seen, evaluated, and nominated (although, yes, the're probably more likely to be remembered in the current setup).

The “less of a chance of being seen” is still an issue in the current setup, but at least there’s a two week period after the end of the eligibilty period for, say, Bob’s regular readers to get around to checking his site, reading his March 29 entry, and nominating it before April 15. That wouldn’t be the case if nominations closed March 31.

Of course, this only focuses on the end of the nomination period, and your thinking would be applicable even if we left the deadline where it is but extended the beginning of the nomination period into the eligibility period. With that, again, my worry is that we’d have two to three process going on at the same time. It’s a challenge right now, even with distinct and clear periods, to rally people to nominate and vote (and help keep the panel on track in meeting their own deadlines).

With the two-week nomination period, we can focus on it. Journalers know it’s coming, save links (somehow) accordingly and submit them, or at least have two weeks to find them or to catch up on their favorite journals to nominate them.

Also, I forgot to mention in my first reply, it also offers the possibility (if not probability) of pre-selection, pre-filtering on the part of nominators. Probably, this is the primary reason why most awards programs (i.e. the Oscars) have a 'after the eligibility period' nominations phase. Taking the quarter into a whole, you - and every individual journaler - have the opportunity to say, “Out of all that, this one rocked.” Without that “taking stock” element, you could love every single entry Bob wrote, and nominate every single one the same day you read it (rather than thinking, “Bob really outdid himself in his Labor Day entry”).

Anyway. I realize I'm devil's-advocating my way into pushing the status quo, and I'm beginning to see where my reputation as being resistant to change is coming from. :)

Honestly, I'm just trying to address questions about "why things are" (i.e. the process wasn't devised by a room full of monkeys at typewriters), and bring up other points of view. So I do want to reaffirm that the process is open to change - a thought-out, detailed proposal can, like everything else, be presented to the masses for a vote.