Time Enough for Hugo Love

[kevin_standlee]

Over on The List That Shall Not Be Named, there is a discussion about how the last few years have seen the Hugo Award nominating deadline adjusted so that the nominations can be announced at various conventions held on Easter weekend. When Easter is relatively early, this shortens the period for nominating, and this has led to the complaint that we're not giving people enough time to evaluate the works published in the previous year.

(There's a separate issue — which was actually the root of the original discussion — about whether announcing the Hugos at conventions over Easter is better than issuing a press release on a Tuesday (the best day for press releases) in a non-holiday period, but that's a different discussion. As usual on THLTSNBN, the discussion drifted away from the original question.)

In my opinion, no matter when you set the deadline, you will still have many people complaining that they didn't have enough time to evaluate the previous year's works. So the question becomes "how much enough to satisfy most people?"

I've suggested that instead of the default eligibility period being the previous calendar year, we make the eligibility year run from September 1 through August 31. Stuff published in the fourth quarter of the calendar year N would be eligible at Worldcon N+2, not N+1 as it currently stands. Furthermore, I would prohibit nominations from being accepted prior to February 1. (This last dovetails with the current requirement that you be a member by the end of January to nominate and would slightly simplify voter administration.) This would guarantee a minimum of four months of "evaluation time."

One bad thing with this proposal is that it means that works released at Worldcon when Worldcon is held on its traditional first-weekend-of-September dates wouldn't be eligible at the following Worldcon, but would have to lay over another year. This can be solved in the simple case by running the eligibility year October 1 - September 30 or by a more complex formula based on the actual dates of the Worldcon, although the latter would lead to the eligibility year varying between 11 and 13 months.

Do I think this is a good idea? I'm not sure. I am sure that it would complicate the Adminstrator's life because it would probably make it more difficult to determine whether a work was published in the correct period. Some works only have a year of publication, not a month. (For instance, works published with no stated publication date only have a copyright date, which is a year.) The current calendar-year system is easier to administer at the expense of possibly penalizing works published late in the year. Or maybe not, since works published early in the year sometimes are forgotten by the time next January rolls around, and this proposal would exacerbate the problem.

I expect the proposal would significantly reduce the credibility of the "I didn't have time to evaluate the works" complaint, although it will never eliminate it entirely.

Should anyone really want to take up this proposal, I'll draft it in the proper technical form for you. I don't expect to introduce it myself.

Comments

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I hope someone takes this up, just so I can argue about how it makes it difficult for the nominators to determine what works are eligible (much less the Administrators).

Frankly, I think the "It doesn't give the nominators enough time to evaluate the work" is a stupid argument. Nomination time isn't the time to evaluate work, it's the time to narrow down the stuff you've already evaluated to a good slate.

[sorek.livejournal.com]

Yup!

[cmdrsuzdal.livejournal.com]

Thanks for a succinct phrasing of this.

Although I totally use nominating season to cram on the last year of books and movies, and enjoy the heck out of the online recommendations and best-of chatter, I know that's not really what it's intended for.

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

It is an interesting idea and I would further suggest discussing it with members of SFWA who recently got rid of their rolling eligibility for a number of reasons, since this proposal would introduce some of those reasons to the Hugo process.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I tend to think that this proposal would indeed lead down the path of madness (and not the March kind) that SFWA discarded, although apparently I hear they've gone too far the other way and revered to first-past-the-post voting as well, getting rid of the preferential "instant runoff" system we use for the Hugos. But I've floated the idea as much as to give people a reason to think about the various trade-offs we make as for any other reason.

[howeird]

It is unfortunate that the cut-off date changes each year. I would like to see it be the same date every year, at a time before the earliest possible occurrence of the holiday. This keeps the time for nominations the same, and those years where Passover comes later, it gives more time to read/view/experience the finalists.

My theory being no one can read every written work of sci-fi/fantasy produced in a year, better to spend more time on the ones which have bubbled up to the surface.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The root complaint is that we shouldn't tie this in with Easter (and the raft of conventions happening then, including the British National SF Convention) at all. It has actually only been a few years that there have been any live events associated with Easter-weekend conventions and the Hugo Announcements. There are those who think we should just post an announcement as soon as the administrator has the figures done and not do any ceremonies or any such nonsense, as they don't think it adds any value.

pnh raised the subject to begin with because he's concerned that while Easter-weekend live events are not bad for raising awareness without the fannish community, they're terrible with generating publicity in the broader "mundane" world because nobody is paying attention at that time.

It would not be difficult to force a hard deadline onto the Hugo nominating, but in order to handle the earliest possible Easter (March 20, as I recall), you'd have to always cut off nominating at the end of February because you have to give the administrators time to count the ballots and contact the nominees to give them a chance to decline nomination.

If the Easter-weekend conventions aren't a consideration at all, it wouldn't be difficult to keep nominations open until the end of March, and that's where the "two months isn't enough time, but three would be" argument lies.

[sorek.livejournal.com]

In Boston our two big sci-fi convetions are Arisia and Boskone. Arisia occurs in January and authors use the convention to promote their works for nomination for Hugos. By the time Boskone comes around in Februrary the window has closed for potential nominators who are not already a member of Worldcon. By the time New York's Lunacon occurs in late March the window has closed for all nominations. That seems wrong to me.

Persoanlly I'd like to see nominations open from Jan 1 through May 31 with "general election" voting from Jun 15 through Jul 31. While I don't have a list of sci-fi conventions and when they're usually held, I suspect Aug is not a popular month for conventions due to the looming presence of Worldcon so not many conventions will feel "left out". This also leaves at least two weeks each for the committee to count both sets of ballots.

On a separate note, I'd like to do away with paper balots completely for the "general election" portion. To vote in the "general election" you need to be an attending member, which for most people is going to cost about $200. Although you can have attending members who, well, don't attend, or maybe just live local, most members will be paying for hotel room costs of at least $400 and likely 900$ or more. And these people don't have internet capabilties?

Let's remember, this is not voting for the next President of the Unites States of America. This is the sci-fi convention version of the "People's Choice Awards".

Or worse, "American Idol".

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Wow, you are aggressive! You'd only allow about six weeks for people to read and review the nominees! And you'd disenfranchise supporting members! Yeow!

You also appear want to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't have/use a computer. Are you aware that there are fans who don't have e-mail addresses and who don't own computers or have internet access? I can point to some of them, including fairly recent Hugo Award nominees. I helped write the rules that explicitly authorize e-voting, and I deliberately made paper ballots always acceptable, even though in practice they've dropped to nearly zero.

From a practical mechanical perspective, you actually have to allow more time for counting nominating ballots than final ballots, particularly because WSFS rules require that you have to give nominees a reasonable amount of time to decline nomination. Final ballot counting (and trophy engraving) is relatively easier.

[sorek.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to disenfranchise supporting members. I looked several times in several locations for several tens of minutes (aka a half hour) and did not see where the word "supporting member" appeared as a valid voter. As for voting in the "general election" I expect most people will take their nomination list, eliminate the ones they nominated but didn't make the top five, and sort the ones they didn't add, to the bottom of the list. If there are nominees they didn't nominate that might indicate a problem; they didn't remember that that nominee was eliglble or even that they read/watched the work in question. In my personal opinion it is less likely that they didn't nominate something due to personal preferernce (e.g. "not sci fi enough" or "less hugo worthy than the stuff they did nominate"). Let's remember, these are the people who actually nominated *something*.

I don't expect many people to read/watch works released over six months ago purely to vote for an award. On the other hand I can barely even remember what I read or watched before Jan and don't know if what I read /watched is eleigible especially as the definition can potentially change each year. What I need is more time for my favorite authors to able to say "nominate my stuff" *and here is what it is*. On the other hand nominating from a list of five titles is a lot easier.

You're already disenfranchising anyone who didn't pay at least $50 for a convention they might not even be attending seven whole months later.

So there are a list of sci-fi conventions award nominees that don't use a computer? I'm having trouble visualizing what category they could be in. And you yourself are making the argument, "even though in practice they've dropped to nearly zero". But we're not even talking about nominees. We'retalking about people who most lilkey are traveling hundreds if not thousands of miles to go to a sci fi convention. Not a thriller/murder mystery or romance novel convention. A sci-fi (ok and fantasy sort of) convention. As for eliminating paper ballots my single reason is to reduce the amount of time needed to collate and count them. If that isn't a large factor then why the near two week delay between closing nominations and announcing finalists?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I looked several times in several locations for several tens of minutes (aka a half hour) and did not see where the word "supporting member" appeared as a valid voter.

See the current WSFS Constitution. Here are the relevant sections:

Section 1.4: Membership.

The Membership of WSFS shall consist of all people who have paid membership dues to the Committee of the current Worldcon.

Section 1.5: Memberships.
1.5.1: Each Worldcon shall offer supporting and attending memberships.
1.5.4: The rights of attending members of a Worldcon include the rights of supporting members plus the right of general attendance at said Worldcon and at the WSFS Business Meeting held thereat.

What this means is than if you want to take the vote away from supporting members, you'd have to redefine it in section 1.5, since an attending membership is defined relative to a supporting member.

Worldcons can offer other classes of memberships as well, and the voting rights there can differ, but the two classes of supporting and attending are guaranteed.

I expect most people will take their nomination list,....

Have you ever nominated/voted for the Hugo Awards yourself?

I don't expect many people to read/watch works released over six months ago purely to vote for an award.

In that case, why would the fact that most recent Worldcons have been able to put together the Hugo Voter Packet of nominated works be such a significant attraction to people joining? (And it is demonstratively increasing the number of supporting memberships being sold.)

You're already disenfranchising anyone who didn't pay at least $50 for a convention they might not even be attending seven whole months later.

Try looking at it not as a ticket to a convention. Consider it in terms of paying membership dues to an organization. To become a member of the World Science Fiction Society, you must pay the organization's membership dues (about $50). To attend the organization's annual convention, you must have that membership and pay the "convention supplement" (the difference between the supporting and attending memberships). This is very much like how many real-world associations work.

WSFS requires that you be a member of the association by a certain date in order to nominate in the association's award process.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

So there are a list of sci-fi conventions award nominees that don't use a computer? I'm having trouble visualizing what category they could be in.

Specific example: John Hertz, recent nominee for Best Fan Writer.

And you yourself are making the argument, "even though in practice they've dropped to nearly zero".

Nearly zero and zero are not the same thing.

But we're not even talking about nominees. We'retalking about people who most lilkey are traveling hundreds if not thousands of miles to go to a sci fi convention. Not a thriller/murder mystery or romance novel convention. A sci-fi (ok and fantasy sort of) convention.

1. There are hundreds of members of WSFS who are voting who aren't attending the convention.
2. I am talking about members of the organization who do not have e-mail addresses and do not use computers. You obviously are having difficulty comprehending that there are any living breathing literate human beings who are fans of SF/F who do not do this, but I know it's true because I'm married to one of them. My wife owns a computer but doesn't have e-mail and eschews web sites. She meant to nominate by paper ballot but forgot to fill it out in time. I had to make out her e-ballot for her. Had she not had me there to do it for her, she wouldn't have been able to nominate.

As for eliminating paper ballots my single reason is to reduce the amount of time needed to collate and count them. If that isn't a large factor then why the near two week delay between closing nominations and announcing finalists?

No, not really, especially as there aren't a lot of paper ballots. Most of the time is spent contacting nominees (not always as easy as you seem to assume it is) and discharging the requirements of WSFS Constitution Section 3.9:

Section 3.9: Notification and Acceptance.
Worldcon Committees shall use reasonable efforts to notify the nominees, or in the case of deceased or incapacitated persons, their heirs, assigns, or legal guardians, in each category prior to the release of such information. Each nominee shall be asked at that time to either accept or decline the nomination....

Counting nomination ballots is much more difficult than counting final ballots, because you have to review all of the ballots and deal with variations in spelling and naming, and computers are very bad at that sort of thing. Humans can do it better, but it still takes time. I'd say two weeks is the bare minimum, actually, and only because good administrators are trying to get things done ahead of time when they can; however, as most of the votes come in during the last few days, there's only so much you can do.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

As usual on such subjects, you are making huge quantities of sense.

For one thing, the fewer paper ballots there are, the less trouble counting them is, so why bother eliminating them? And while computerization is oceans of help with the final ballots, as you note it doesn't make the nomination ballots much less work at all.

The root problem with the nomination deadline is that, no matter when you set it, voters will have to remember items that are a year or more old. There's no way jiggling with the deadline is going to fix this so long as the awards are annual. Attempts to try are like thinking that DST gives us more daylight. But then, there are people who seem to think it does.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I read all the nominated works when I receive my voter packet.

I run hugo_recommend to help people remember what they think may be good enough to nominate and share that information as the year passes.

Most authors and creators do post their annual eligibility list on their blogs. If that's what you want to see find and, follow their blogs.

Eligibility rules are remarkably stable. It takes at least two years to change a rule, and it doesn't happen often.

The Hugo award is a club award, voted and given by the members of the World Science Fiction Society. I don't care about disenfranchising non-members, they never had a franchise in the first place. I care about growing the electorate by increasing the membership of the society (whether through supporting or attending Worldcon memberships), not by throwing open the doors to anybody who can be bothered to go online.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

In Boston our two big sci-fi conventions are Arisia and Boskone. Arisia occurs in January and authors use the convention to promote their works for nomination for Hugos. By the time Boskone comes around in Februrary the window has closed for potential nominators who are not already a member of Worldcon. By the time New York's Lunacon occurs in late March the window has closed for all nominations. That seems wrong to me.

Hugo nominations must be tied to Worldcon's schedule. That's it. There are whole regions that don't even have spring conventions, much less big spring conventions. Maybe Lunacon should move earlier if it wants to have more influence on the nominating process.

I thought not.

And these people don't have internet capabilties?

There are fans, even wealthy fans, who don't have access to or just plain don't use the internet. Internet access and use doesn't directly correlate with financial security. Supporting a paper ballot is cheap and easy when only a few eligible voters take advantage of it.

[mrshirt.livejournal.com]

Please leave Lunacon out of this we have not wish to become involved.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

My point exactly. I'm all for leaving scheduling and reasons for scheduling up to a convention committee.

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

I think you make a good point about publication dates. It's usually simple enough to fix the calendar year in which a work appeared, and not necessarily easy or even possible to nail it down to a particular release date. So leaving the current 'calendar year' is going to create more work at best, with confusion and frustration all too likely.

As a side note, what factors make Tuesdays the best day for press releases?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Weekends are always bad because nobody is paying attention. Monday is bad because people have just come back from the weekend. Releasing on Tuesday means that people receiving it will have recovered from the weekend and may get the news redistributed more quickly.

Yes, there's an implicit assumption that people at work are spending an inordinate amount of time goofing off and reading non-work-related web sites. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

[petrea-mitchell.livejournal.com]

It's not an implicit assumption in this case-- the person who first introduced the information said it was based on actual Web site readership statistics.

Similarly, consider the real and documented phenomenon of Cyber Monday...

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

That was pretty much my guess - that Tuesdays were the first non-Monday day, leaving the most time for passing the news around before everyone went home Friday evening, and that Mondays would be occupied by everything that had piled up over the weekend. But I figured others had considered the question in great detail - I expect PR professionals have detailed studies on the subject.