kevin_standlee: (Hugo Logo)
Because it was buried as a question in an unrelated post, I'm going to promote it up to here, especially inasmuch as the Hugo Award nominating deadline is upon us:

Electronic publication is the same thing as paper publication

It would appear that there are still many people who think that publishing something online isn't "real" publication, and that something is only "really" published when it appears on pieces of paper with ink on them. This is not true. Publication in any medium counts. The key thing here is that it starts your eligibility clock, too. If you publish something electronically in 2014 and then it is published in paper form in 2015, your work is not eligible for the 2016 Hugo Awards, no matter how popular the paper publication was. You had your shot in 2015 based on the 2014 publication.

This applies to web comics. Consider Girl Genius. It is published one page at a time, three times per week. Some months after each storyline ends, (and not typically in the same calendar year), a printed paper publication comes out collecting that storyline. The serial work rule applies here: a work is eligible for the year in which the final installment is published. If you have a novel serialized across four issues of Analog and the final part is published in the January 2016 issue, the novel won't be eligible for the Hugo Awards until 2017, despite the fact that most of it actually appeared in print in 2015. In the case of the webcomic, if the final installment of a story appeared in 2015, that storyline is eligible for the 2016 Hugo Awards. If a printed-on-paper collection appears in 2016, that collection is not eligible for the 2017 Hugo Awards, because the work was previously published in serial form ending in 2015. Girl Genius won the first four three Best Graphic Story Hugo Awards, and the works that were won were originally published electronically and were finalists for the Hugo Awards held in the years following the publication of the final installments of each work online, not for the printed paper publications that followed the following year.

The serial-work rule is not new. It has been around since (as far as I can tell) the Hugo Awards rules were written down. The only reason I can think that people are confused is that they somehow think something published online isn't "real" and that only ink-on-paper publications are "real."
kevin_standlee: (ConOps)
[Originally intended as a short post on FB, but it grew, so when I got done with it, I brought it over here, which is my main journal.]

There are people on all sides of Puppygate who are talking blissfully about the vast sums of money that must be flowing into the coffers of Sasquan, the 73rd World Science Fiction Convention​. By the look of some of the comments, you'd think that the committee must be building Unca Scrooge's Money Bin on the banks of the Spokane River. Y'all need some perspective. I do not speak with inside information for this Worldcon on this subject. I speak as someone who chaired a Worldcon and had to sweat over a budget.

1. Despite what you may think, a Supporting membership is not 100% "profit" to the convention selling it. You may think, "Oh, it's money for nothing at all!" (which is the argument people use to say it should be $5 or free), but it does cost the convention resources to service the membership. This is what's known as variable cost: the amount the convention's costs go up every time they sell a membership. That includes paper publications and postage expenses for every member who requests them, and that's not trivial. In fact, for non-US-based members, it may well exceed the revenue realized on the membership. Another cost not considered is what the convention's payment-processing system charges per membership. There are others. So while in most cases, a Supporting membership does help support the Worldcon by helping to pay some of the huge fixed overhead cost, it's not like sending them $40 means $40 "profit."

(I suspect the concept that there are members not in the USA is likely going right over the heads of most Puppies. I despair of my fellow Americans sometimes.)

2. It currently takes about five Supporting members to equal the gross (not net) revenue of an Attending member. Thus the (as of April 12) 3,300 Supporting members of Sasquan are equivalent to only 660 Attending members. So the Supporting members (based on the April 12 numbers) may be 47% of the members, but they represent less than 20% of the revenue of the convention.

If we gave Supporting members voting rights in proportion to the amount of revenue they contribute to the convention, they'd only get one Hugo Award nomination per category, compared to five for Attending members.
kevin_standlee: (Hugo Logo)
Total hits yesterday on the Hugo Awards web site: 27,140. Not quite a record, but large, and not evenly spaced. Traffic now falling off sort of pointing back to normal usage levels, but we'll see what happens on Monday when some of the mainstream news sites may pick it up as they have in the past.

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 3 4 56 7
89 10 11 12 13 14
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 16th, 2025 09:01 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios