Comments on: Blog Awards 2009 – Rule change – Should past winners be eligible?

By: K8

K8 — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:07:21 +0000

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.

By: Sabrina Dent

Sabrina Dent — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:19:58 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:10:46 +0000

“Itâ€™s dead easy to churn out posts” sounds like an ad for Bock Butter.

Spread it around, man.

By: Bock the Robber

Bock the Robber — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:18:29 +0000

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?

By: fÃºstar

fÃºstar — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:09:43 +0000

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.

By: Alan in Belfast

Alan in Belfast — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:03:33 +0000

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

By: aphrodite

aphrodite — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:00:36 +0000

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

By: Cupid Stunt

Cupid Stunt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:06:56 +0000

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.

By: Salubri

Salubri — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:11:14 +0000

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…)

By: Bock the Robber

Bock the Robber — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:55:25 +0000

I’m inclined to agree with FÃºstar. 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.