Edit: Ok, what happens when a publishing house has multiple concurrent editors? (I admit, I don't pay so much attention to the inside of the industry, and I didn't look close enough at the list of past "Best Editor (Long Form)" nominees.)
One option would be to list all the editors together for each nominated publisher, and then award rockets to all of who are listed on the winning entry. It could be argued that this both diminishes some individuals who would have otherwise won singularly over their peers, as well as gives some publishers extra weight if they have multiple popular editors.
Or the second rocket could just go to the "head" editor for that publisher. But then a nomination for one of the other editors gets collapsed into the single publisher finalist, and they don't get individual recognition on the final ballot.
Honestly I'm not sure if the majority of the nominating and voting members really know enough about who has edited which books under a publisher that has multiple concurrent editors. I know that I have absolutely no clue.
I would speculate that those who really do know the best should perhaps be giving out some kind of "inside publishing" "Best Book Editor for SF&F" award, instead of a Hugo.
So maybe just "Best Publisher" actually should be the replacement for "Best Editor (Long Form)," but I still think that's going to face a significant amount of resistance, since people really like to give their nods towards specific individuals.
Or "Best Editor (Long Form)" could just be left as it is, with the recognition that it'll still be confusing to a large number of members, and we can just hope that the people who are nominating and voting in that category are the ones who might actually know the kinds of inside information needed to do so. (I'd still favor switching it to "Best Publisher," at least, with the recognition that that proposal would be harder to pass.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-09-04 11:15 am (UTC)One option would be to list all the editors together for each nominated publisher, and then award rockets to all of who are listed on the winning entry. It could be argued that this both diminishes some individuals who would have otherwise won singularly over their peers, as well as gives some publishers extra weight if they have multiple popular editors.
Or the second rocket could just go to the "head" editor for that publisher. But then a nomination for one of the other editors gets collapsed into the single publisher finalist, and they don't get individual recognition on the final ballot.
Honestly I'm not sure if the majority of the nominating and voting members really know enough about who has edited which books under a publisher that has multiple concurrent editors. I know that I have absolutely no clue.
I would speculate that those who really do know the best should perhaps be giving out some kind of "inside publishing" "Best Book Editor for SF&F" award, instead of a Hugo.
So maybe just "Best Publisher" actually should be the replacement for "Best Editor (Long Form)," but I still think that's going to face a significant amount of resistance, since people really like to give their nods towards specific individuals.
Or "Best Editor (Long Form)" could just be left as it is, with the recognition that it'll still be confusing to a large number of members, and we can just hope that the people who are nominating and voting in that category are the ones who might actually know the kinds of inside information needed to do so. (I'd still favor switching it to "Best Publisher," at least, with the recognition that that proposal would be harder to pass.)