As a follow-up to recent discussions on the Hugo Awards, Greg Hullender and Eric Wong of RocketStack checked the Hugo nominees by magazine and came up with the a breakdown here. Their graphs show a clear shift in the Hugo tastes over the last six to eight years.

The decline of Analog as an award-winning magazine stands out. I’ve already written a couple of blogs a while back about the sorry state hard SF looks to be in as judged by the Hugo packet, and here’s another indication. Also visible in the graph is the meteoric rise of Clarkesworld and Tor.com. Hullender points out an additional shift within the last three years that seems to be more than what the Puppies’ slate would warrant. He then compares the Hugo with the Nebula nominees, which are slate-proof but show similar trends, except that Lightspeed weighs in here. In the last three years, the Big Three heavy-hitters of the print era, Asimov’s, Analog and F&SF, have seriously lost market share in the awards to the newby online magazines.

So what’s happened? The Big Three are built on the old paradigm, of course. In previous blogs, I’ve pointed out the shift in taste, the shift in diversity, the shift in generation and the shift to e-pubs. What’s happening is the current editors of the Big Three aren’t doing a good job any more of predicting what the awards voters want to read.