Popularity in Blogging and Book Awards

I've just finished my latest Kidlitosphere roundup, but I decided to pull out one item into its own post, because I have a few things that I'd like to say.

Not to be missed (and soon to have many comments, if I'm not mistaken) is a new post by Colleen Mondor from Chasing Ray about popularity contests and their echoes back to high school. Colleen says: "Informed choice is important. But in most popularity contests that is not what happens... Popularity contests are about having your friends win and you like your friends, you think they are good people, you want them to be winners. You vote for your friends no matter what."

I've been giving "best of" and "favorites" lists a bit of thought this week, in light of Book Blogger Appreciation Week. Even before I didn't win in my nominated category (KidLit, and yes, of course that's probably influenced my thinking a bit, but I don't think very much), I expressed my reluctance to list "my favorite blogs that weren't shortlisted for BBAW" (as I discussed here). I've always been unwilling to list my favorite five blogs for this or that blog award meme. And I think that Colleen hit upon the reason for my discomfort in these areas. I don't want to judge and pick favorites between my friends. I want to have left popularity quests behind in high school (though I enjoy reading about such things, from time to time, for the safe distance of adulthood).

I don't want to declare people as in or out because I like them or don't like them. I don't want to tell you "these are my 10 favorite blogs", and then not be able to include an 11th that's just as important to me. I don't want to pick between #3 and #13 in the first place, because my mind doesn't work that way. I don't think it worked that way for me even when I was in high school. (Though I may have blocked a lot out.)

What I want to do with my Kidlitosphere Roundup posts (Sunday Afternoon Visits, etc.) is point out some of the many bloggers around the Kidlitosphere who are writing interesting things. I'm not going to say "You should read Colleen's blog. She's my favorite in sub-category XYZ". I'm going to say "Colleen wrote a post about this, which I thought was really interesting. If you think that topic sounds interesting, you should click through." And then if you like it, and you want to add Colleen to your reader, you should go for it. I want to focus on the good things about people's blogs, with as little divisiveness as possible.

Even when I review books, I don't rate them on a scale of 1 to 5, or whatever. I like to talk about each book, what I liked about it, what I thought could have been done better, how it compares to the author's other books, etc. I have a personal set of six things that I look for when I'm evaluating each book, and I'll usually discuss how the book works in those areas. But I won't give the book a grade or a star ranking. I understand that this makes it a bit more difficult for readers. You can't skim to the bottom of my review to see if I gave the book an A before you read the review. You have to take the things that I say about the book as your guide, and decide if something in there sparks you, personally, to want to read the book. But I think in the long run that relatively detailed thoughts about a range of books are more useful than a list that just says "I like these five titles."

Mind you, I'm not saying that there isn't a place for book award processes, like the Cybils. If you have a set of criteria, and panelists who are selected to avoid any bias (as we do with the Cybils), I think that's a completely different thing from a popularity contest, or one person's arbitrary ranking. Let me elaborate.

The Cybils Awards were started as an attempt to find a balance between literary awards based primarily on quality of writing, which don't directly take kid-friendliness into account, and popularity/vote-based awards, which don't directly take quality of writing into account. I think that the Cybils team (and yes, I have been on the organizing committee since the first year) has found a pretty nice balance.

Anyone can nominate titles (one title per person per category). Then two sets of judging take place. In the first round, nominating panels for each of nine categories winnow the list of nominated titles from many (sometimes more than 100) down to five to seven shortlist titles. Then a separate panel for each category chooses a winner from the shortlists. More than 100 panelists are involved each year, in addition to a few other organizers like myself.

Panelists are selected from volunteers who actively blog about children's and young adult literature (you can read the call for volunteers here). Most volunteers indicate a first and second choice by category, and indicate whether they prefer first round or second round judging. While the process of assigning judges to panels happens behind closed doors (it's quite a logistical challenge, taking 100 people, each with multiple preferences, and grouping them into some 18 panels), the lists of the panelists in each category are public. (This year's lists of panelists will be available soon).

This year, I'm not organizing a category, though I have in the past. I have, however, been following the discussions by which people are being assigned to panels. I can tell you that the category organizers (you can read about them on the Cybils blog) are working hard to ensure that everyone named to a panel has a clear and current understanding of literature within that genre (graphic novels, poetry, etc.). They're also working to ensure that the panels are as balanced as possible (newer people vs. old hands, male vs. female perspectives, etc.). They're ensuring that no conflicts of interest crop up. We wouldn't, for example, put an author on a panel where that person has an eligible title. Tanita Davis won't be judging in Young Adult Fiction. Sara Lewis Holmes won't be judging in Middle Grade Fiction. And so on. In one case, we had an author's spouse work with us to ensure that he wouldn't be in a position of judging his wife's book. You get the idea. Occasionally, category organizers will approach someone who hasn't volunteered and invite them to join a panel. Usually this happens in the interest of getting more specialized expertise for a particular category, such as Graphic Novels, or in the interest of making a particular panel more balanced. Really, it's all about making the panels balanced, experienced, and as objective as possible. 

Anyone who wants to understand the people judging in a particular category can go and read the panelists' blogs (again, the lists of panelists will be available soon). The criteria used for judging the books will also be made public, as will the full lists of nominated titles. Anne Levy and Kelly Herold, who founded the Cybils, have been very careful all along the way to make the process as transparent as possible. It's because of that transparency, and the carefully derived mix of popular nominations with formal judging, that the process works so well. (Though we have, of course, worked out a few kinks along the way.)

My personal feeling is that the most valuable thing for non-participants that comes out of the Cybils process each year is not the list of winners. It's the set of five to seven short list titles in each of nine categories. There are many new books published for children and young adults every year. Having a set of experts, people who live and breathe children's literature year-round, weed through hundreds of nominated titles, to identify the ones that best meet the award's criteria (of being well-written AND kid-friendly), well, that's a real gift. But I don't really care which books WIN. (Which is why I'm not a judge this year, either - I'm just evangelizing for the Cybils in general.)

And so, in the coming weeks and months, you'll see me link to many blogs. But you won't see me participate in any memes where I have to list my favorite bloggers. You'll see me talk about and promote the Cybils. But you won't see me add star ratings to my reviews. You'll see me nominate titles for the 2009 Cybils. But you won't see me casting votes in anything that seems like a popularity-based book contest. I'm following Colleen's example, and leaving those behind me. Most of this is the way that I've always been operating. But I feel like my viewpoint on all this has crystallized a bit. I appreciate having had the chance this week to think about it all. And I hope that you'll all stay tuned for Cybils nominations on October 1st.

Thanks for listening! I'll be interested in reading your feedback, here and/or at Chasing Ray.

Comments

[Colleen]

Thank you - and thanks especially for explaining so much about the Cybils.

[Susan (Chicken Spaghetti)]

Well said, Jen.

[Melissa (Book Nut)]

Thanks for the thoughtful post Jen (I'll have to go read the one at Colleen's, too). I agree: I dislike popularity contests (and not just because I don't often make the cut), because there's so many people I enjoy and I don't like leaving anyone out.

On top of that, though: I agree wholeheartedly about the Cybils. They're a wonderful resource (and NOT a popularity contest) that combines the best of all worlds.

[Dawn Morris]

Thank you so much for explaining all of this, Jen. As someone who's new to the whole kidlit blogging scene, I really appreciate the thought and integrity you put into every one of your posts.

I too wish we could leave popularity contests behind, but I'm afraid that they permeate every aspect of our society. That's why I strongly believe that we need to teach our children to be critical thinkers. Here's a related Newsday article which you may be interested in reading.

Thank you for yet another great post, Jen!

[susan]

Jen, I don't mind bloggers or books showcased. What I mind is a lack of transparency, flawed criteria and judges who aren't qualified to judge. I've served on a scholarship panel, a major poetry competition judges' panel (I helped identify and solicit judges as well as helped organize the competition) and a few other competition panels. In each case, I am proud to say, winners were chosen because of the work.

What I appreciate most about how Cybils operates is that you have judges who live and breathe, and therefore are qualified to judge a book on its merit and not popularity. Anytime popularity outstrips merit, the win is empty, a fraud.

I was very social in high school and actually served as Class Secretary. I enjoyed school. My position was work, but if kids didn't know me, I wouldn't have won. There's a lot I loved about high school but none of it enough to relive it.

Here's to celebrating work we love and those who write it.

Thanks,

[Melissa (a.k.a. Betty and Boo's Mommy)]

Very well said, Jen, and allow me to echo others' thanks for explaining the Cybils so clearly. I had a hard time with listing a few of my favorite blogs as part of BBAW, which is why I decided to list my entire Google Reader. Took awhile to put together, but for me, it was either that or nothing. If someone wasn't on my list, it was because I hadn't discovered them as of last Sunday. :)

And I've come to a similar conclusion with rating books. I've just started not to rate books, and I prefer this way so much better, for all the reasons you said.

Really enjoy your blog, BTW!

[Jen Robinson]

Thanks so much for the positive feedback, all. I'm especially glad to see such support for the Cybils (and I'm happy that I was able to help people to understand the Cybils a bit better).

Melissa (Book Nut), that is of course part of the problem with popularity contest. They make people who didn't win feel like they haven't made the cut. And that's divisive. Thanks so much for your words in support of the Cybils!

Dawn, I liked that Newsday article. I agree with you - as a society, we often encourage shortcuts like ratings, instead of encouraging critical thinking. The truth is, everything is filled with shades of gray - the trick is not to be paralyzed by that.

Susan, I do agree with you that it's about merit, and not about popularity. Or, it should be anyway. That's what I was trying to get across - you explained it better in your comment than I did, with fewer words.

Melissa (B&B's Mommy), I don't have a problem with other people using ratings on their blogs, if they find it helpful. But I prefer not to. I'm glad you're finding a way to do it that works for you. That's the important thing.

Thanks so much for visiting and commenting, all!

[Doret]

I am looking forward to casting my Cybils votes. I even have one for early readers. The judges are going to have a hard time this year. There are some great books out.

I've said it before but will say it again, I love the new Cybils logo

[Jen Robinson]

It's hard every year, Doret. But we're lucky to have so many wonderful books
to choose from. And I agree with you about the new Cybils logo. Sarah
Stevenson is a genius!

[Jennifer @5 Minutes for Books]

I love that you link to others so widely. It makes this one of my favorite book sites to visit (oops -- am I allowed to say that??).

And I totally agree about the ratings of books. I do like to see them, but am reluctant to give them. At 5 Minutes for Books, we recently added a "5 Star Reads" category and that does catalogue the best of the best, but in general, what might be a 3 star book for me, would be a 4 star book that someone else would love. I'd rather describe and let them make their own decision than bias someone with a mediocre rating.

[Jen Robinson]

Thanks for reading and commenting, Jennifer. And yes, you can name favorites
if you like (especially if they are me ;-) ). I was just making a point
about how I like to do it. And I do appreciate your feedback that the
linking helps. I know exactly what you mean about a three star review for
one person being a four star review for someone else (etc.). I have a pretty
good sense by now of what books are likely to appeal to me, and seeing a
single numeric rating doesn't help much, one way or the other.

[Shelly Burns]

Great post! I don't tend to participate in memes where I have to list faves either, because of the whole popularity thing. I started putting ratings on my reviews due to peer pressure, but I don't really like it. Like you, I just enjoy giving my thoughts. I appreciate you being honest. Can't wait for the Cybils!

[Jen Robinson]

Thanks for the support, Shelly. I'm fortunate that no one has ever pressured
me to include ratings on my reviews. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the
Cybils, too!

[Colleen]

What's so impossible with ratings is that one person's 3 is another's 5 but you don't know that when you see the ratings.

[Saints and Spinners]

I appreciate what you wrote about popularity contests, Jen. I don't begrudge anyone his or her fame or "microfame" but I want others to get their turns, too. I think you do really well with highlighting pertinent posts in your roundups.

[Jen Robinson]

Exactly, Colleen!

And thanks for saying that, Farida. I do try (with the links posts). So many people are writing things that deserve to be noticed - limiting to some set of favorites will never work for me.

[Mary Ann]

bravo, Jen - thank you for a thoughtful, well-developed post. I liked the way that BBAW brought attention to a wide range of blogs, but it did sit uneasily with me. I appreciate your taking the time to develop your thinking on it.

I love the community that the Kidlitosphere has developed. The welcoming, supportive feeling has meant a huge amount to me as a new librarian and new blogger. thank you for being such a leader, thinking about all of our work promoting children reading great books.

[Liz B]

Is popularity the right word? When 1000 blogs are nominated but the bests come from the same small group of people who are also involved in running it, is that really popularity or is it more a club? Is that popularity across the book blogosphere or does it just happen to be the voting power of one particular segment? Based on the lists posted at BBAW, more than half the best winners were associated with BBAW in one way or another (I couldn't find the actual BBAW committee list, just panelists and thank you lists). Two thirds of the bests won went to those connected to BBAW in that fashion.

[debbie]

Really terrific post. I agree with Colleen too, that ratings can be meaningless; your & others' thoughtful approach to showcasing books is much more useful to me as a reader. And I always look forward to the Cybils lists, knowing that many booklovers have been involved with the process and not some mysterious panel of unknown number and origin!

[Jen Robinson]

Mary Ann, thanks so much for your comments. What you described is the way that I want the Kidlitosphere to be, the way I found it when I arrived nearly four years ago. It's great to hear that that welcome still gets across to people who have arrived more recently. Thanks for your kind words!

Liz, yes, those kinds of outcomes are disturbing. I think that certain aspects of BBAW worked well, in terms of celebrating all bloggers and enlarging the community. I loved the randomly assigned interview pairs, and the posts where people talked about who led them to particular books that they loved. But I agree that the outcome of the awards left a pretty strong club-like impression. My gut feel is that if the whole thing is really supposed to celebrate bloggers and build community, there shouldn't be a list of "bests" at the end at all.

And Debbie, I think you hit it on the head with the phrase "mysterious panel of unknown number and origin." We're tried very hard not to make the Cybils like that, and I'm very glad to hear that, as your as other comments attest, we've been pretty successful. And I'm very glad to hear from you that the more thoughtful (vs. ratings-based) approach is valuable to you as a reader. I mean, readers like to read, right? Why should they be put off by having to read an entire review to get an opinion? I've been enjoying your blog, too. Loved the blueberries!

[Terry Doherty]

Uh, oh! Bi-coastal brain working again! Seriously, I think you've offered some great food for thought just by way of example of something that has built community without the snags: the Cybils.

If the A is for Awards, then say that; if it's for Appreciation ... then offer some meaningful questions about what got you hooked on blogging? who are your blogging inspirations, etc. And forego the lists.

Your thoughts also reinforced my recent decision (based on some of the discussions) to stop rating books on my Shelfari and Goodreads shelves, too. Eventually I'll take all the old ones off.

[Jen Robinson]

Glad to know (if not surprised) that we're in sync on this, Terry. I was
actually thinking something similar to what you said last night. I'd be
happy to list my favorite blog for censorship news, or the people whose book
tastes most closely seem to match my own, or ... whatever. So it's not about
not listing favorites at all. I guess it's about having a clear reason for
recommendations (of books or blogs), instead of just slapping labels on
them. One of the reasons I stopped posting reviews on Amazon was b/c I felt
like the star rankings were too arbitrary for me.

[Colleen]

Terry that is it - Awards or Appreciation? And also it is instructive how the Cybils have managed to weather these storms so effectively - it might look easy from the outside but as Jen shows here it is a lot of work to keep things that way.

[Natalie]

I thought I'd add my 2 cents in this. I was a panelist for one of the categories of BBAW. The list of blogs I received to review was very long and I thorough.

I can honestly say, I do not personally know any of the people associated with the BBAW. I answered the call to be a panelist through Twitter and that's it. I'm not a book blogger myself, nor do I personally know any book bloggers.

I don't know if that changes the perception of the awards, but I hope it gives you a sense that there was fair play involved; at least on my part.

[Fuse #8]

Beautifully written, Jen. Transparency, transparency, transparency is the name of the game. Love it.

[Jen Robinson]

Yes, Colleen, that is a big part of my point. These things are HARD.

Natalie, thanks so much for reading and taking time to comment. It's great to hear your perspective. And please don't think that I was trying to criticize the panelists, or say that anyone was deliberately trying not to play fair. I can't even imagine trying to weed through a list of book blogs, especially if one wasn't a book blogger, or just wasn't familiar with the category, and say, based on five posts, which ones are the best. I know from my Cybils experience how hard the panelists must have worked.

But ultimately, the outcome, the "best" lists, the winners came from a popular vote. And watching that whole process has helped me to crystallize my own thinking, that I don't think that "best" for something complex, like how good a particular blog is in a particular category, is something you can discern via popular vote. And, further, I'm not sure I see the point of declaring anyone "best" anyway. I'll reiterate what I said in response to Liz's comment - if the idea is to build community, then having "best of" lists seems counter-productive. But of course that's just my personal opinion, and I've always been a bit leery of such things.

Betsy, yes, transparency helps a LOT in working through these kinds of issues. Thanks for chiming in!

[Colleen]

I appreciate Natalie chiming in here as well - a lot. The main problem for me was as Liz expressed up above - the panelists and organizers were heavily listed in the shortlists and as winners. And that just does not look good. It wouldn't look good in any award (If the producers of Mad Men organized the Emmys how would we feel differently about their award for Best Drama?)

I was asked to be a panelist and due to a pending family crisis (my grandfather's declining health) I knew that I could not participate in anything during late summer. But also I'm not an early joiner - I've waited years to see how the Cybils function before contributing in any way other than posted support via my blog. I want to see how people do things before I attach my name to them. In the case of the BBAW, I don't think many issues with the panelists/organizers/categories/5 post selection were thought out. It is very easy to say that any criticism is just sour grapes; much harder to actually look at your organization/event and consider it with fresh eyes.

[Jen Robinson]

I, too, had an opportunity to be a BBAW panelist, and was unable to
participate because of travel commitments (story of my life, I'm afraid). I
am grateful to the panelists who put in time on this, particularly those who
felt that my blog was worthy of shortlisting. I just think that these "best
of" types of things are very tricky.

[Janssen]

Great post. You always have such worthwhile things to say. Thanks for being both thoughtful and direct.

[Jen Robinson]

Thanks for your kind words, Janssen! Responses like yours mean a lot.

[kbookwoman]

Thank you Jen for a very thoughtful post. I enjoyed learning about more blogs, and have added many to my Google Reader but there are so many wonderful and interesting blogs that did not win awards that I appreciate just as much. I would rather honor the collective wisdom and spirit of all blogs.
Cybils is a great addition to the awards category. I display the books and bookmarks at our library. I enjoy nominating books in the various categories. Thanks to all who work so hard producing this child friendly list.

[Jen Robinson]

Thanks so much for the feedback, kbookwoman! I like how you put it very
much: "honor the collective wisdom and spirit of all blogs". That's what I'm
going to try to do, going forward. And I'm SO glad that you find the Cybils
useful, and am thrilled to hear that you have a Cybils display at your
library. That is excellent! Nominations will be open in 9 days!

[Lenore]

Hi Jen,

I completely understand your point of view. I, too, had meant to write a post appreciating my favorite bloggers but gave up when I realized it was an impossible task. And I don't give books ratings on my blog because I want people to read what I have to say - not make snap judgements about how I felt based on an arbitrary star rating. I do assign star ratings on LT, GoodReads and amazon, but often they end up different for the same book across these platforms because the rating systems are different. "It was ok" is a 2 on GoodReads, but a 3 on amazon and on LT you can rate 1/2 stars and I usually do.

I was also the chairperson for BBAW kidlit, a position I volunteered for because I read a lot of kidlit blogs and thought I could make a positive contribution. I had 4 other panelists, 3 bloggers (who may or may not have known much about kidlit, I don't know) and an author (who also is very familiar with kidlit).

I was very surprised by some of the results from my panelists - specifically (and this is nothing against Natasha) that Maw Books rated so highly across the board despite not really being a kidlit blog (even Natasha would agree that her blog fits better in the general category). But the posts she submitted did fit the category and she has an excellent blog. There was no way to disqualify her based on the judging critera and because of her high scores, she easily made the short list. I was actually quite pleased with the shortlist in general, though I suspected Natasha would win the category because her name recognition is higher among bloggers in general. So is the solution to open up end voting only to blogs regisitered in the category? I don't know. I know that trying to make the process more fair and transparent is a big goal for the BBAW awards committee and we definitely welcome everyone's input.

PS. The reason we allowed panelists to keep their blogs in contention was that we were afraid no one would volunteer to help if they had to bow out. I know it looks bad that panelists ended up on a lot of shortlists and winners lists, but many of these bloggers have awesome blogs for a reason - they are community builders and strive for excellence. I can't think of a single BBAW volunteer who I would accuse of trying to bend the results in their favor.

[Jen Robinson]

Thanks for commenting, Lenore. I really appreciate your openness about all of this. And I'm glad to hear that the BBAW committee is working to make the process more transparent for next year. As I said to Amy earlier today in an email, fairness in judging for blogs is a very tricky thing. On the one hand, you want people familiar with the blogs in a particular category to be doing the judging, since they can tell what's best (and aren't limited by looking at five posts, which seems to have had some unintended effects). On the other hand, you want to eliminate bias (and perception of bias), so you don't want those people who are eligible in the category to be judging. And then you have popular voting for the "winners", which is a whole other can of worms. I don't have the answers (except for my personal opinion, that declaring "bests" at all is divisive for the whole community of book bloggers), but I agree that more transparency in the process will help.

Anyway, I do appreciate your detailed comments. And I appreciate the work that the panel did on the KidLit category, and that people chose to include my blog in the shortlist. I'll be interested to see what happens with the process next year. (Though, regardless of changes, I doubt that I would personally submit my blog to a popular vote again - this process has really clarified my thinking on that. And developing a better understanding of ourselves, well, that's one of the better outcomes of blogging, I think.) Thanks again!

[Ann Kingman]

Thanks for the thoughtful post and description of the Cybils -- I was not familiar with the awards or the process until I read this post.

I do want to speak up about something. This is just me speaking personally, not as a member of the BBAW committee.

Yes, I was part of the BBAW committee this year, and my blog was named to 3 awards. And I can see how that would raise eyebrows.

But here's the thing: the reason I was on the committee was that my blog was nominated and shortlisted last year and I saw how much work went into every aspect of BBAW. And I wanted to give back, as my way of saying thanks to Amy and the other organizers for bringing recognition to all book blogs. When I saw the calls for assistance, how could I not volunteer, after having benefited from the shortlist?

It makes sense to me that those who work to improve their blogs and make their blogs the best they can be would also be involved with the community, to learn and to grow -- and also want to help with BBAW. I'm sorry that it seems to be considered a negative thing.

[Lenore]

I know Amy's goals for BBAW are affirmation and increased awareness of great book blogs in general and in niche categories. I hope that together we can come up with a way of making the awards more palatable for everyone because it would be a shame if all the best blogs withdrew from consideration.

And you know, popular vote, especially by a knowledgable electorate, is not necessarily bad. Last year, the whole process was determined by popular vote, and your blog won your category and mine was shortlisted. I think there is just too much opportunity for "cheating" technology to make it a really viable option in the future.

[Jen Robinson]

Ann, I can see how after being honored by BBAW last year you'd want to be move involved this year. I had that instinct myself - but couldn't really follow up on it, because I'm already spread very very thin on other activities for my blog, like the Cybils. But here's the thing - if you run an award, and then you are the one who wins it, and you end up declaring yourself "best" in one of more categories, well yes, that's going to raise eyebrows. I can't tell you differently.

Regarding your specific comment, I can't help focusing on this sentence: "It makes sense to me that those who work to improve their blogs and make their blogs the best they can be would also be involved with the community, to learn and to grow -- and also want to help with BBAW".

You seem to be implying that the people involved in BBAW are somehow working harder to improve their blogs than people who weren't involved in the process. And I'm sorry, but you can't possibly know that. The problem is that you're taking what remains in essence a popularity contest among a particular set of people, and you're using it to declare the blogs that are more heavily involved in the process "better" than other blogs. I can believe that this isn't intentional, and your point about wanting to give back makes a lot of sense, but the way the process stands now, that's been the outcome.

To Lenore's point (in her more recent comment), I have no idea how to manage this whole thing without diminishing niche blogs. I love Maw Books - I've been reading Natasha's blog for ages. I think it's a GREAT general book blog, with enough of a focus on KidLit to keep me reading. But as Lenore said, as Natasha herself has said, it's not predominantly a KidLit blog. And it won, in part, BECAUSE of that. Because Natasha is better known in the general book blogging community, BECAUSE she doesn't blog primarily about children's books. And yes, I could work to get more involved in the larger book blogging community, and become better known there myself. I know that there are great people there. But I am spread so so so thin already with the Cybils and Kidlitcon and my literacy roundups and PBS - the last thing I want to do is feel like I have to get deeply involved in some other big event, so that I can win some sort of award.

Maybe it sounds naive, but I just don't see why there has to be a "Best KidLit Blog" at all. I don't have the bandwidth to participate more in that process, to make sure that it's fair, when I don't agree with "best" anyway. Yes, I did win last year. And I appreciate the vote of confidence by people. I do. But... It made me a little uncomfortable even then. This year, the whole process has been bigger and bolder, and it's just made me realize how much I don't want people voting for whether or not mine is the "best" kidlit blog. I love that people think it's a good kidlit blog - I'm thrilled that people are reading - but I don't need to be declared "best." Make sense?

[Colleen]

Perception is a key point of any award's process - you can't have the public perceive it as being anything other than impeccable. That's part of the problem here and perhaps why even trying to do this (unless you have a big group who removes themselves from contention) is impossible.

I know several panelists blogged that over 1,000 sites were nominated. Was it really impossible to find judges familiar with the lit blogosphere among them? I think a big issue here was the time crunch. Choose your panelists early, remove them from contention and then give plenty of time to review the nominated blogs. I honestly don't think there wasn't enough time to do this event(compare to the months that go into the Cybils for an example).

Finally, to the KidLit category in particular. To me, that proved the fallacy of the shortlist based on five posts. I can reframe my site in a dozen (or more) different ways but that does not mean that it is actually a site cit for any one of those categories. I can be a Kidlit site based on 5 posts, but I am not a Kidlit site as Jen or Betsy, etc. so clearly are.

Why do I think Natasha (who has an excellent general review blog I believe) won this category? Because the kidlit sites split their vote among four blogs they know and folks who don't know kidlit but do know Natasha voted for her. That is how popular vote happens sometimes.

But that means it's a popularity contest which brings us back around to why "Best" is not really the correct way to title the event.

[J.L. Powers]

I've often wondered if popularity sometimes feeds book sales, too, rather than the merits of individual works. What's the difference between "getting known" or "getting your name out there" and some nebulous, undefined, but very real popularity contest? It's maybe not the same as tallying votes for Homecoming Queen....or tallying votes for the most popular book out there this year....but whenever I work to "market myself" as a y.a. writer, or any kind of writer at all, I feel like I'm participating in a popularity contest of sorts. Thank goodness the kidlit world is friendlier than the world of adult books. :-)

[Jen Robinson]

Hi J.L., Thanks so much for commenting, and sharing an author's perspective
on these questions. It makes sense to me that you'd want to be known on the
merits of your work, and not on some kind of popularity. Colleen Mondor
talked about that a bit in this post:
http://www.chasingray.com/archives/2009/09/dear_author_welcome_to_the_lit.ht
ml. But I'm glad to hear that the KidLit world is relatively friendly. We
certainly try. Thanks again for the feedback - it's an interesting dimension
to the discussion.

[Amy @ My Friend Amy]

Just to comment quickly on why the vote is open to everyone...I've wanted READERS of book blogs to be able to vote as well. And there's simply no way to allow that happen without opening the voting to everyone.

Additionally, while some people only voted for blogs they already knew, others thoughtfully went through the shortlists and examined each blog. So in that way the shortlisted blogs received a kind of exposure they might not receive if we simply appointed a winner.

We are definitely working on ways to ammend the process and quite frankly have been since it began. I have no plans to do away with the awards because I think if we can come up with a way that enough people see as at least fair, the awards can be a positive healthy thing for book bloggers. I'm willing to keep trying.

Oh and it's a heck of a lot of work even if it's a flawed system. I spent pretty much every night and weekend since the beginning of August on BBAW. (sorry slightly offended by the idea we didn't work hard enough)

[Colleen]

No one said it wasn't hard work, Amy. I said there wasn't enough calendar time involved. Every panelist who has blogged on this has mentioned how overwhelmed they were usually as some sort of defense. And everyone who provided posts for the shortlists has commented on the short period (often 2 days or less) they had to submit. I think to keep from killing yourselves you should give yourselves more time to do what you want to do.

Best wishes on achieving your future goals with this.

[Rebecca Reid]

I think you hit the nail on the head right here:

"the most valuable thing for non-participants that comes out of the Cybils process each year is not the list of winners. It's the set of five to seven short list titles in each of nine categories."

For me, that list of shortlisted blogs was gold! I don't think any of the people I voted for were named "the best" but I really don't think it matters. I didn't read many of the huge blogs anyway (maybe one of them?) because I don't really care for their style of blogging (nor the books they review).

I don't particularly care what happens next year in terms of the final "voting." I have never been one to care for what the popular crowd cares for (as I mentioned on Chasing Ray). I'll just look forward to the short lists! (assuming that they are chosen by a committee as was this year). I'll spend time going through those and find the matches for my own blogging and reading style.

And I've been increasingly uncomfortable this week by my "list of favorites" because I keep thinking of those I left off. Maybe I'll do a spotlight every week or something? I want to recognize good blogs.

[Ann Kingman]

Jen wrote:
"You seem to be implying that the people involved in BBAW are somehow working harder to improve their blogs than people who weren't involved in the process."

No, that's not at all what I am implying. I am stating that many who *are* taking their blogs seriously are also involved in the community and would have heard the calls for help on the BBAW process. It says nothing about the people who are not involved, one way or the other. I can't possibly know.

I'm wondering, though, who is going to volunteer to judge the blogs if they are told that they cannot also be contenders? For the few of us that have won in previous years, that would be a reasonable requirement, but that is not nearly enough bodies to handle the workload. And then they are tarnished with the "close to the committee" brush the following year if they do want to be considered.

Lastly, the blogs were nominated, ostensibly by their fans and readers, in specific categories. If Natasha's readers think of her blog as a "young adult" blog, then that's what it is to them. I don't think anyone should be made to feel undeserving of an award because not everyone agrees on the category.

The truth is that no matter how the awards are run, someone is going to be unhappy.

[Jen Robinson]

I'll agree with Colleen, Amy, that I certainly never implied, or meant to imply, that you weren't doing plenty of work with the awards. And of course you should keep them going for as long as you find value in them. They're your awards.

Rebecca, thanks for your feedback. I'm glad that you found good blogs to follow out of BBAW. I think that's a huge bonus to the whole process, and it's something that committees worked hard to provide. I'm glad that came through, and was useful.

Ann, thanks for clarifying. I think I responded to your initial comment too quickly, and I'm glad that you weren't saying anything about the people who weren't involved in the process. As to who would do the judging, if you were to pull people judging out of the nominations, well, I guess that gets back to my initial point that I don't believe in such judging in the first place, particularly for something so emotionally invested as blogs. But again, that's my personal opinion. I didn't intend this post to be a forum for discussing details about how BBAW worked or didn't work. I was thinking through my own views for what I want to do going forward, and working out for myself the ways that I think that the Cybils are different.

And now, I think that we've gone full circle, and that this discussion is causing more harm than help. So, I'm going to turn off comments on this post. But if anyone wants to email me directly, feel free - my email address is in the upper left-hand corner of the blog.

Amy, Lenore, Ann, I wish you nothing but the best in however you decide to run BBAW next year.