At the Blog Awards this year Twenty Major and Sinéad Gleeson pulled off a three in a row each and have said they will not enter into the Awards next year. There are other blogs too that could do a three in a row in 2009. Now there’s the idea of giving other people a chance at winning a category but there’s also the idea that talent is talent, repeat or not. The IIA Netvisonary Awards have a rule that if you’ve won in a category before you are not eligible for it again.
I’d like your views about whether a rule like this should be implemented for the next Blog Awards. Win it one year, not eligible ever again or just not eligible for the follow-on year? Or keep it as it is, no changes? If you win in a category one year, can you be entered in other categories though?
Once I go over all the feedback hopefully I can make an informed decision then.
What does best mean? And what do we want it to mean?
I’d say let people win as many times as others judge them to be winners, and think of other solutions for inclusivity and preventing the problems of inertia and familiarity.
Kieran’s idea of Past Blast is a good one. However you then have more awards/subcategories and much as the logical part of me thinks that is a good idea the bit that has previous experience of running anything says too feckin complicated!
So leave them in I reckon
keith
Couple of things. I completely agree with the suggestion that has been made a couple of times, to ask the winner to judge for the following year, keeping them involved until they are eligible again the following year. I don’t think this devalues the award, but prevents the awards from becoming stale and predictable.
I also think the idea of giving judging feedback to short-listed blogs is an excellent idea. There may be a few bloggers who are just missing out time after time, because of something silly they’re doing that’s damaging their scores. They should be told about the little things they could do to improve, and this might allow them all to push the standards a little higher, which is never a bad thing.
The Best Blog should win, regardless of whether or not they won last year.
Maybe you should change the voting rules, but keep the competition open to all. Very noble of 20 & Sinead to say they won’t enter, but like everyone else is saying if they deserve to win then thats it. It would take away the shine from the award if some new blog wins under a system where past winners are barred, there would always be a risk for, it wasn’t as good as 20’s etc.
Call me selfish but this year was the first time I’ve ever won anything for anything and I’d like the chance to win again 🙂 I think if people feel they want to exclude themselves then fair enough but best is best is best.
I’ve said before that I think the longlists and shortlists are brilliant recognition in and of themselves and allow a much wider selection of blogs to be highlighted above and beyond the winners…
Only in the blogosphere would we be having this discussion!
Awards by their very nature are not inclusive.
How about leaving the Awards as they are – because to disallow previous winners can only bring down the standard. Add a second gong or “new entry in this category” winner.
The big blogs are big because an enormous amount of time and effort goes into creating and sustaining them. And you’re only as good as your last post. So to keep your Best Blog title you have to be as good this year as you were last. And Twenty Major and Sinead clearly were – so they deserved to win
For the blog awards to grow then it has to attract new entrants and winners. If you win you need to step aside. Maybe have a minority vote or say in picking the next winner and handing over the trophy on the night.
If the blog awards grows then all past and future winners benefit.
Nah, changing nothing. Leave well alone I say 🙂
I don’t see any reason why someone shouldn’t be allowed to win back-to-backs or three-in-a-row. As long as the blog in question had done sufficiently good work during the year and wasn’t just getting the nod due to Croneyism (or what have you) then I really don’t see a problem at all. Leave it alone I reckon.
The only thing I’d add is that I’m not a huge fan of the judging emphasis on a) blogging frequency, and, b) the extent to which a blogger interacts with his/her audience. This is a matter of personal taste of course, but for me a good blog is all about the quality of the writing. That’s what I look for.
It’s easy enough to be prolific (and churn out posts) and likewise easy to be pally to your readers (not that there’s anything wrong with that at all – far from it!). Good, considered and imaginative writing, on the other hand, is hard work and I have great admiration for those bloggers who manage to pull this off consistently.
Probably an old-fashioned view in some ways I suppose, but just thought I’d mention it.
I’m inclined to agree with Fústar. Why should anyone have to drop out if they’re producing good enough work during the year.
He’s right about the judging emphasis, though. Comments can be manipulated and frequency is all about churning them out, but quality can’t be faked.
Firstly, anyone winning “just because so and so couldn’t run” is hardly going to feel so great about it are they?
Secondly, umm it’s a public opinion award isn’t it? No one actually gets to “accept” nominations do they? So how are people starting to recuse themselves? Bit of ego there isn’t there? (Not in a bad way at all – darn nice of them to step aside and let new folks get some recognition)
Now – there might be a nice simple way of doing this that would be a kind of half and half solution: why not give people a little commemorative prize when they win a third year in a row (like they allow repeat winners to keep perpetual trophies after a certain number of wins) and then give them a pretty badge for their blog that says “Not eligible for XYZ Irish blog award as a triple winner!” That way we get around people winning ad nauseum and still have a way to show them the recognition they deserve for a couple of years. (if someone already suggested this in comments forgive – i don’t have time to read them all…)
Best blog is best blog and if possibly the best blog isn’t included then the winner of best blog is possibly really only second best blog.
I am so good at getting my point across.
I’m with the ‘leave it as it is’ camp.
Fustar – it’s not at all easy to “churn out posts”. Nor is it easy to keep up a high level of interaction with your readers.
Both take a high level of dedication and knowledge of what your readers will be interested in. If what you are writing is crap they’ll be quick enough to tell you and stop logging on
fustar > … the judging emphasis on a) blogging frequency, and,
> b) the extent to which a blogger interacts with
> his/her audience.
For those of use who haven’t been part of the judging process, I’m not sure we even realised this was part of the criteria
aphrodite,
I accept your point RE: committed interaction/engagement with your readers – that does, of course, take time and effort to develop.
However, while I’d also accept that it’s hard work to be a frequent poster whose posts are of a consistently high quality I don’t think it’s hard to be a frequent poster per se. There are certain kinds of posts that it IS easy to churn out (if one so wishes)! I don’t see anything controversial about suggesting that.
All I’m saying is that frequency, in particular, is not inherently praiseworthy in itself.
It’s dead easy to churn out posts. And when you’re feeling lazy, all you need to do is ask your readers a question:
So. What’s your favourite brand of peanut?
“It’s dead easy to churn out posts” sounds like an ad for Bock Butter.
Spread it around, man.
Quite late to this particular party but I actually think the way 20 and Sinead managed it is class. I think it sets a nice precedent and would hope that other three-in-a-rowers will step aside for a year.
Honestly, anyone who doesn’t will look like a bit of an arse now, so I’m not sure there’s actually a need to officially regulate this bit.
No, it’s perfect the way things are. If I won (gazes out the window dreamily) some sort of blog award in the future, I wouldn’t want to think that it was only because the best competition wasn’t running! That would warp the statistics which is unfair.
I also think that Twenty and Gleeson should definately stay in the competition… there’s no point in being ashamed of multiple wins!!!
Fuck the begrudgers, as they say.