Chairman Goodchild wrote:In all of the categories, there were forty-seven stories total for voters to read. There was a lot of horse puckey in there, and not many people I think made it thru them all. If the moderators could choose the best three or four stories from each category, then votable submissions would be shrunk to nine or sixteen instead of forty-seven. There would be much more signal and much less noise.
tibbi wrote:That said... I can tell if a story doesn't grab me fairly quickly, and I will stop reading it then and there, to go to the next one...
Maybe that's lazy and wrong, but that's how I see things. Probably why I wouldn't’t make a good slush pile reader for a publisher. But in terms of reading for a fan judged contest, seems to be a way less painful way to go.
strawman wrote:I don't read long. A bad opening sentence, multiple typos & misspells the author didn't take the time to edit, are strong indicators of hackneyitis.
normsherman wrote:Ya. The systems and structure will definitely be different for the next contest. All in all CwBF was a real success and I think fairness and talent did triumph in the end, but alas, the days are long past when we could post a simple forum vote about who would win in a fight: man-sized crab with a chainsaw claw or a teleporting elephant, and expect honest results.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest