I’m running a little behind on this, but here are the fiction finalists for the Dragon Award 2017, announced last week. Clearly this award runs on a different system than the usual SFF literary awards. For example, only Chambers, Liu and Jemisin also appear on the Hugo ballot, and only Jemisin appeared on the Nebula ballot.
Vox Day’s recommendations are marked in boldface. There’s already been a bit of a squabble, as Scalzi and Littlewood tried to withdraw but were refused by the awards committee.
Quick analysis: Gender diversity took a clear hit, with 46 of 58 being men (~80%). However, 5 of the works were co-authored by two men, which pushes up the count a little. Apparently 17 of 58 are racial minorities (~30%), and Hispanic/Portuguese/Native American scored much better here than on the Hugo or Nebula ballot with 7 of 58 (~10%). Apologies if I missed anyone.
BEST SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL (1 woman, 7 men, 1 Asian)
A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers
Babylon’s Ashes by James S.A. Corey
Death’s End by Cixin Liu
Escaping Infinity by Richard Paolinelli
Rise by Brian Guthrie
Space Tripping by Patrick Edwards
The Collapsing Empire by John Scalzi
The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier
BEST FANTASY NOVEL (INCLUDING PARANORMAL) (2 women, 6 men, 1 Asian, 1 Native American, 3 Hispanic/Portuguese, 1 Jewish)
A Sea of Skulls by Vox Day
Beast Master by Shayne Silvers
Blood of the Earth by Faith Hunter
Dangerous Ways by R.R. Virdi
Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge by Larry Correia and John Ringo
The Hearthstone Thief by Pippa DaCosta
Wings of Justice by Michael-Scott Earle
BEST YOUNG ADULT / MIDDLE GRADE NOVEL (3 women, 4 men)
A Court of Wings and Ruin by Sarah J. Maas
Defy the Stars by Claudia Gray
Firebrand by A.J. Hartley
It’s All Fun and Games by Dave Barrett
Rachel and the Many Splendored Dreamland by L. Jagi Lamplighter
Swan Knight’s Son by John C Wright
The Hammer of Thor by Rick Riordan
BEST MILITARY SCIENCE FICTION OR FANTASY NOVEL (1 woman, 9 men, 2 Hispanic/Portuguese)
Allies and Enemies: Exiles by Amy J. Murphy
Caine’s Mutiny by Charles E. Gannon
Cartwright’s Cavaliers by Mark Wandrey
Invasion: Resistance by J.F. Holmes
Iron Dragoons by Richard Fox
Star Realms: Rescue Run by Jon Del Arroz
Starship Liberator by B.V. Larson and David Van Dyke
The Span of Empire by Eric Flint and David Carrico
BEST ALTERNATE HISTORY NOVEL (2 women, 6 men, 1 Asian)
1636: The Ottoman Onslaught by Eric Flint
A Change in Crime by D.R. Perry
Another Girl, Another Planet by Lou Antonelli
Breath of Earth by Beth Cato
Fallout: The Hot War by Harry Turtledove
No Gods, Only Daimons by Kai Wai Cheah
The Last Days of New Paris by China Mieville
Witchy Eye by D.J. Butler
BEST APOCALYPTIC NOVEL (1 woman, 7 men, 1 black, 1 Arab, 3 Jewish)
A Place Outside the Wild by Daniel Humphreys
American War by Omar El Akkad
Codename: Unsub by Declan Finn and Allan Yoskowitz
The Obelisk Gate by N.K. Jemisin
The Seventh Age: Dawn by Rick Heinz
Walkaway by Cory Doctorow
ZK: Falling by J.F. Holmes
BEST HORROR NOVEL (2 women, 7 men, 1 black, 1 Hispanic/Portuguese)
A God in the Shed by J.F. Dubeau
Blood of Invidia by Tom Tinney and Morgen Batten
Donn’s Hill by Caryn Larrinaga
Live and Let Bite by Declan Finn
Nothing Left to Lose by Dan Wells
The Bleak December by Kevin G. Summers
The Changeling by Victor LaValle
The Hidden People by Alison Littlewood
Lela E. Buis 
Aug 11, 2017 @ 02:06:23
According to the Dragons, Scalzi, Littlewood and Jemisin have all requested their books not be included.
It says something about SF/F right now that several authors have disrespected the fans who nominated them rather than be tainted by having Wrong Fans. Jemisin and Scalzi are Puppy Kickers, so not too surprising from them, but Littlewood seems to have asked not to participate purely to avoid negative press.
You can get blowback from being nominated for the wrong award by the wrong people.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 09:28:46
I’ve got another blog about it scheduled to go up tonight. Last I heard, Scalzi is going to stay in the competition.
I’m getting the feeling Scalzi and Jemisin think the Dragon’s are a substandard award because there wasn’t a big fuss to award it last year–just another of DragonCon’s hundreds of activities. On the other side, I’m sure the awards committee is wondering why these people all didn’t plan to attend because it’s such a great venue to sell books. I’m sure all the independent authors will be there. It’s a huge convention compared to WorldCon, for example.
There are issues with scheduling, I guess. Research I did for the awards series indicates the publisher normally sets things up for award nominees to attend. If they didn’t do this for the Dragon’s last year, why not?
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 11:20:58
@Lela —
“I’m getting the feeling Scalzi and Jemisin think the Dragon’s are a substandard award because there wasn’t a big fuss to award it last year”
No, the Dragons are a substandard award because there are no safeguards against schemes like ballot-box stuffing.
And clearly there was a lot of stuffing or other machinations to get to the Dragon shortlist. I mean, puppy types are always complaining that the most popular books aren’t getting awards, but just take a look at the relative numbers of ratings for the books that made the list:
(Data from File 770 — http://file770.com/?p=36752)
The numbers below look at the Dragon Awards finalists and compare how they rate on LibraryThing, GoodReads, and Amazon. In nearly every case, it’s the pup-affiliated works that have virtually no ratings. They have no widespread popularity, so guess how they got onto the Dragon shortlist?
Best Science Fiction Novel
Babylon’s Ashes by James S.A. Corey – 246 LT / 13,057 GR / 507 A
Death’s End by Cixin Liu – 325 LT / 10,308 GR / 379 A
The Collapsing Empire by John Scalzi – 302 LT / 8,943 GR / 437 A
A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers – 288 LT / 7,216 GR / 272 A
Rise by Brian Guthrie – 4 LT / 74 GR / 30 A
Space Tripping by Patrick Edwards – 3 LT / 32 GR / 6 A
Escaping Infinity by Richard Paolinelli – 1 LT / 23 GR / 23 A
The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier – 1 LT / 13 GR / 18 A
Best Fantasy Novel (Including Paranormal)
Blood of the Earth by Faith Hunter – 75 LT / 2,858 GR / 325 A
Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge by Larry Correia and John Ringo – 36 LT / 1,606 GR / 451 A
Beast Master by Shayne Silvers – 1 LT / 553 GR / 369 A
Dangerous Ways by R.R. Virdi – 0 LT / 345 GR / 35 A
Wings of Justice by Michael-Scott Earle – 1 LT / 64 GR / 43 A
The Heartstone Thief by Pippa DaCosta – 1 LT / 62 GR / 22 A
A Sea of Skulls by Vox Day – 0 LT / 37 GR / 56 A
Best Young Adult / Middle Grade Novel
A Court of Wings and Ruin by Sarah J. Maas – 278 LT / 65,412 GR / 1,262 A
The Hammer of Thor by Rick Riordan – 521 LT / 25,928 GR / 730 A
Defy the Stars by Claudia Gray – 116 LT / 2,443 GR / 95 A
It’s All Fun and Games by Dave Barrett – 21 LT / 159 GR / 83 A
Firebrand by A.J. Hartley – 9 LT / 74 GR / 8 A
Swan Knight’s Son by John C. Wright – 0 LT / 62 GR / 72 A
Rachel and the Many Splendored Dreamland by L. Jagi Lamplighter – 0 LT / 31 GR / 13 A
Best Military Science Fiction or Fantasy Novel
Starship Liberator by B.V. Larson and David Vandyke – 4 LT / 491 GR / 191 A
Cartwright’s Cavaliers by Mark Wandrey – 2 LT / 431 GR / 190 A
Iron Dragoons by Richard Fox – 0 LT / 252 GR / 108 A
The Span of Empire by Eric Flint and David Carrico – 13 LT / 168 GR / 44 A
Caine’s Mutiny by Charles E. Gannon – 13 LT / 124 GR / 26 A
Star Realms: Rescue Run by Jon Del Arroz – 0 LT / 68 GR / 71 A
Allies and Enemies: Exiles by Amy J. Murphy – 1 LT / 30 GR / 29 A
Invasion: Resistance by J.F. Holmes – 0 LT / 2 GR / 45 A
Best Alternate History Novel
The Last Days of New Paris by China Mieville – 269 LT / 2,400 GR / 58 A
Breath of Earth by Beth Cato – 57 LT / 390 GR / 31 A
1636: The Ottoman Onslaught by Eric Flint – 32 LT / 361 GR / 115 A
Fallout: The Hot War by Harry Turtledove – 24 LT / 322 GR / 85 A
Witchy Eye by D.J. Butler – 9 LT / 112 GR / 70 A
No Gods, Only Daimons by Kai Wai Cheah – 0 LT / 33 GR / 31 A
A Change in Crime by D.R. Perry – 0 LT / 10 GR / 3 A
Another Girl, Another Planet by Lou Antonelli – 1 LT / 8 GR / 12 A
Best Apocalyptic Novel
The Obelisk Gate by N.K. Jemisin – 401 LT / 12,215 GR / 248 A
American War by Omar El Akkad – 282 LT / 6,123 GR / 172 A
Walkaway by Cory Doctorow – 154 LT / 1,307 GR / 84 A
A Place Outside the Wild by Daniel Humphreys – 2 LT / 86 GR / 116 A
The Seventh Age: Dawn by Rick Heinz – 5 LT / 54 GR / 56 A
ZK: Falling by J.F. Holmes – 0 LT / 52 GR / 31 A
Codename: Unsub by Declan Finn and Allan Yoskowitz – 0 LT / 6 GR / 4 A
Best Horror Novel
The Changeling by Victor LaValle – 60 LT / 686 GR / 52 A
Nothing Left to Lose by Dan Wells – 13 LT / 346 GR / 21 A
The Hidden People by Alison Littlewood – 23 LT / 210 GR / 8 A
A God in the Shed by J-F Dubeau – 8 LT / 82 GR / 45 A
The Bleak December by Kevin G. Summers – 4 LT / 23 GR / 43 A
Donn’s Hill by Caryn Larrinaga – 0 LT / 21 GR / 20 A
Live and Let Bite by Declan Finn – 0 LT / 9 GR / 14 A
Blood of Invidia by Tom Tinney and Morgen Batten – 0 LT / 4 GR / 8 A
———–
Compare with the numbers of ratings for the Hugo shortlist:
2017 Best Novel Hugo Finalists
All the Birds in the Sky, by Charlie Jane Anders – 843 LT / 17,718 GR / 317 A
The Obelisk Gate, by N. K. Jemisin – 401 LT / 12,215 GR / 248 A
Death’s End, by Cixin Liu, translated by Ken Liu – 325 LT / 10,308 GR / 379 A
A Closed and Common Orbit, by Becky Chambers – 288 LT / 7,216 GR / 272 A
Ninefox Gambit, by Yoon Ha Lee – 297 LT / 4,222 GR / 199 A
Too Like the Lightning, by Ada Palmer – 347 LT / 2,856 GR / 117 A
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 11, 2017 @ 12:03:19
Thanks for posting the numbers. It still works out to be about who is participating, though, and what their preferences are. Demographics at Goodreads, for example, looks to be about 75% women so you’re going to get ratings heavily influenced by female taste.
If you look at the DragonCon demographics here, attendance runs about 65% male, and the biggest age block is 26-35. If attendees are voting (or even fans with this worldview), then you’re going to get a picture of young male taste in SFF. Attendance at DragonCon is approaching 80,000, and if everybody votes, that’s 52,000 male votes to 28,000 female. In the letter to Littlewood, Pat Henry advanced the suggestion that the number of votes cast would eventually drown out the influence by Puppies or Justice Warriors that affects smaller venues like WorldCon, where attendance was only about 4600 last year. It would be interesting to see their results. Hopefully they’ll get to the point where they can publish some demographics on the voters.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 12:20:55
@Lela —
“It still works out to be about who is participating, though, and what their preferences are.”
Well, in part you are right. It works out to be about who is participating AND willing to manipulate the results through ballot-box stuffing.
“Demographics at Goodreads looks to be about 75% women so you’re going to get ratings heavily influenced by female taste.”
Sorry, Lela, but that’s not gonna make up the difference between 13,000 Goodreads ratings and 13 Goodreads ratings, as you can see in the first category above.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 12:45:37
Henry says there are steps to control box stuffing. For one thing, SurveyMonkey tags responses that come from the same computer. This means you’ll get an acceptance, but there’s a flag on the response at the other end. Since they haven’t published the data, they clearly don’t want comments on the process at this point, but maybe we’ll get some later.
To counter your ratings data, here are some sales figures on the 2015 Hugo ballot:
The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Tor), 1,800 copies.
The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor), 1,900 copies.
Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc), 94,000 copies.
Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos (Amazon’s 47North imprint), 2,360 copies.
Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie, (Orbit US; Orbit UK), 8,000 copies.
There’s not anything to be gained by disrespecting young male taste in reading material. It exists, even if this group isn’t much to participate in reviews and rating sites.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 12:53:57
I don’t know why you think those Hugo sales numbers are relevant here. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges — it’s a different year and different books. What we’re talking about here is THIS year and THIS set of books, and THIS Dragon shortlist.
Nobody is disrespecting “young male taste in reading material”. I don’t know where you get that idea. Again, just look at the numbers — 13,000 vs. 13 / 3000 vs. 40 / 65,000 vs. 30. And so on, on down the line. Those are immense — and immensely significant — differences.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 13:00:45
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree that these numbers are in any way significant.
I really doubt that the number of people who rate a book at Goodreads, for example, have anything to do with the number of people who vote for a particular choice in the Dragon Awards. These may be two entirely different populations. If I understand Larry Correia correctly, he’s making about $200K a year from book sales, which suggests a sizable audience.
It would be interesting to see the results of correlation studies between GR ratings and award wins.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 13:21:23
@Lela —
“I’m sorry, but I don’t agree that these numbers are in any way significant.”
Stop being so disingenuous, Lela. You know perfectly well that relative GR and Amazon ratings numbers are a fair way to assess popularity.
Since you posted that earlier Hugo list, let’s compare your sales figures to the rating numbers:
The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Tor),
— 1,800 copies, 13,893 GR ratings, 500 Amazon ratings
The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor), 1,900 copies.
— 1,900 copies, 1,347 GR, 119 Amazon
Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc), 94,000 copies.
— 94,000 copies, 51,890 GR, 3596 Amazon
Lines of Departure by Marko Kloos
— 2,360 copies, 10,096 GR, 1540 Amazon
Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie
— 8000 copies, 23,938 GR, 450 Amazon
The Three-Body Problem
— ? copies, 43,052 GR, 1,439 mazon
Who won? Three-Body — with more GR ratings than anything except Skin Game, and nearly as many as that.
And then you try to compare to books like
Escaping Infinity by Richard Paolinelli – 1 LT / 23 GR / 23 A
The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier – 1 LT / 13 GR / 18 A
— It’s laughable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:06:21
But Butcher (with apparently the largest audience) didn’t win. Was he No Awarded? In order to establish statistical significance, i.e. a real relationship, you’d need to to studies.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:12:41
@Lela —
“But Butcher (with apparently the largest audience) didn’t win.”
That’s right. It’s not a perfect correlation — it’s a matter of looking at the general levels of popularity (thousands versus tens of ratings) and grouping those with vaguely similar levels together.
“Was he No Awarded?”
I dunno. I didn’t NA him, but I don’t know what the totals were. He didn’t win because his book wasn’t suitable for the Hugo award. As I’ve said before, though, I’ll lay you good odds that Dresden will win the series Hugo if that award is still around next time a Dresden book gets published.
“In order to establish statistical significance”
Nobody here is trying to “establish statistical significance”, Lela. The difference between thousands and tens is perfectly obvious without any statistical testing.
LikeLike
Nov 08, 2017 @ 21:03:54
Vote stats are here, for you both.
Click to access 2015HugoStatistics.pdf
The whole history can be found here
Though 2015 is the first one which provides voting breakdowns
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:20:17
P.S. — I looked it up. Yes, Butcher was No Awarded, but only by 250 votes. The First place (Three-Body) winner got twice as many votes as Butcher.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:22:41
Which suggests it’s not sales or GR ratings that will successfully predict the Hugo winner. (Research actually shows it’s highly correlated with the Locus List and the Nebula nominations.)
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:25:33
“Which suggests it’s not sales or GR ratings that will successfully predict the Hugo winner.”
Again, as I’ve already said, it’s not a perfect correlation. What I keep telling you is that a book that only has tens of ratings doesn’t belong with books that have thousands of ratings. That’s the point being made here.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:41:01
I agree with your point that books with thousands of rating at GR and tens have different audiences.
The good thing about statistical studies is that they show whether or not the correlation figures are significant i.e. dependable.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:20:23
Do you think Butcher would win for a series above Patricia Briggs, for example?
I agree that you might draw some general conclusions by comparing award wins to review ratings, but the Dragon Awards look to be a new beast. As I commented above, there’s not much apparent correspondence to either the Hugo or the Nebula, and not much with the Locus List, either. We’re used to being able to predict the Hugo result from the Nebula and the Locus List, but the award appears to have a different basis. At first glance, it looks like a lot of men voted their taste here that don’t participate in the Hugo competition. It also looks like the Justice Warriors moved to support candidates they thought might win. This apparent slate is what Jemisin is seeing when she looks at the ballot.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:28:46
@Lela —
“Do you think Butcher would win for a series above Patricia Briggs, for example?”
Absolutely.
“As I commented above, there’s not much apparent correspondence to either the Hugo or the Nebula, and not much with the Locus List, either.”
Actually, most of the Hugo novel shortlist is on there — it’s just spread out more since the Dragons have so many categories and such long lists.
And the differences in “correspondence” can easily be explained by the very obvious ballot-box stuffing.
“This apparent slate is what Jemisin is seeing when she looks at the ballot.”
Yes, the puppy-affiliated slate is very much what Jemisin is seeing. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:34:44
So you think she’s elitist? Doesn’t like the unwashed competition? Actually, she’s complaining about apparent tokenism.
Here’s the Hugo novel ballot. Only Chambers, Liu and Jemison correspond. LaValle also appears, but not for his novella.
All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders (Tor Books / Titan Books)
A Closed and Common Orbit by Becky Chambers (Hodder & Stoughton / Harper Voyager US)
Death’s End by Cixin Liu (Tor Books / Head of Zeus)
Ninefox Gambit by Yoon Ha Lee (Solaris Books)
The Obelisk Gate by N. K. Jemisin (Orbit Books)
Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer (Tor Books)
Again, you have no evidence for ballot stuffing, only participation.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:45:27
@Lela —
“So you think she’s elitist? Doesn’t like the unwashed competition?”
LOL. No, I think she doesn’t like participating in rigged games.
“Here’s the Hugo novel ballot. Only Chambers, Liu and Jemison correspond. LaValle also appears, but not for his novella.”
Okay, three out of six instead of four out of six. And the Dragons don’t have a novella category.
My point still stands — books with only tens of ratings don’t belong with books that got thousands of ratings.
btw — I’m watching the Hugo livestream. You may be happy to hear that The Tomato Thief, the magical realist novelette, just won its category.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 15:15:53
@Lela —
Please stop editing your posts after they’ve already been answered. It’s annoying, and leaves the appearance that you are dishonestly trying to sneak comments by without leaving them open to rebuttal.
“Again, you have no evidence for ballot stuffing, only participation. ”
You just don’t want to see it. In reality, there’s no way that books with only 5 or 10 or 20 ratings get onto those lists **without** stuffing the boxes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 11, 2017 @ 15:48:40
Sorry, I’m editing while you write.
You’re disrespecting the Dragon’s Awards committee with unfounded allegations. The Puppies have already made the point that a large segment of readers is not served by the Hugo or Nebula awards. There they are.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 18:24:11
@Lela —
“You’re disrespecting the Dragon’s Awards committee with unfounded allegations.”
On the contrary. I’ve already shown you multiple foundations for my allegations.
1. The rules themselves say they only look at email addresses, nothing else (like IP addresses and so on);
2. I myself successfully nominated three different works in the same category (Horton Hears a Who, I Wish That I Had Duck Feet, The Cat in the Hat) using three different email addresses;
3. Occam’s Razor: It’s the simplest explanation for the appearance of books that have only tens or single digits of ratings to appear on the ballot;
4. Oh, and at least one puppy has himself exhorted voters to “vote early and often” for his book, using those exact words.
You have absolutely no rebutting evidence. Gee, I wonder why?
“The Puppies have already made the point that a large segment of readers is not served by the Hugo or Nebula awards. ”
No, they have made the **claim** — not the point.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 19:28:45
Until the Dragon Awards publish their data, this is a useless argument. However, I already mentioned that SurveyMonkey (which they use to collect votes) does flag duplicate responses. I’m sure they also screened you out as a prankster, regardless that the system thanked you for your vote.
Also, last year Vox Day made it clear that the Rabid Pups reading his recommendations should only vote once. Presumably he had some kind of background info about screening methods.
Regardless that the Dragon Award is new, it’s not the organization’s first experience with awards. The awards banquet this year will include Guest of Honor Awards, The Julie Award, The Hank Reinhardt Fandom Award and the Eugie Foster Memorial Award for Short Fiction.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 19:46:12
@Lela —
“Until the Dragon Awards publish their data”
I think the word yo’re looking for here is “unless”, not “until”. The Dragon administrators have refused to even post numbers for LAST year’s vote.
Note in stark contrast that the Hugos have posted their breakdowns already.
There’s a reason why award administrators would refuse to reveal their data. You can guess what that reason might be.
“I already mentioned that SurveyMonkey (which they use to collect votes) does flag duplicate responses. ”
Please post a link to any webpage or other reliable source saying that the Dragon administrators are actually doing this.
Be specific.
“Also, last year Vox Day made it clear that the Rabid Pups reading his recommendations should only vote once.”
No he didn’t. What he did was to tell the rabids to vote in the Dragons **using only valid email addresses**. I’m sure I can still find that quote — it was on his website — if you’re really interested in seeing it.
If you’re talking about the Hugos, yes of course they only voted once — because the Hugos only allow one vote per person. Unlike the Dragons.
“The awards banquet this year will include Guest of Honor Awards, The Julie Award, The Hank Reinhardt Fandom Award and the Eugie Foster Memorial Award for Short Fiction.”
Which are entirely irrelevant to our current discussion.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 20:30:52
Here are the terms and conditions, which indicate the organization can/will investigate suspected abuses and cancel accounts found in violation.
The list of other awards is to demonstrate their familiarity with running awards programs. If they’re so bad at it, why isn’t anyone concerned about the integrity of the Eugie Foster award? There are other awards presented there, too. When I was there last, they presented Baen awards, where I got a nice chance to talk to Toni Weisskopf.
I’ll concede the point on Vox Day’s instructions for one vote. It does look like he was talking about the nomination process.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 20:39:29
@Lela —
“Here are the terms and conditions, which indicate the organization can/will investigate suspected abuses and cancel accounts found in violation.”
Those terms and conditions don’t say a single thing about Survey Monkey. What they actually say is that Dragon administrators can change any vote at will for any reason, at their sole discretion. I’ve already posted quotes from those rules on a previous thread.
Still waiting for that link about Survey Monkey and the Dragons. Do you actually have one?
“If they’re so bad at it, why isn’t anyone concerned about the integrity of the Eugie Foster award?”
Has anybody asked anyone to vote for those other awards? Has voting for those awards been opened to the public at all? No, I don’t think so.
As I said — they’re irrelevant to our current discussion.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 21:06:05
Eh? SurveyMonkey is an well known online survey application. It’s used for collecting responses on everything from casual information polls to big time scientific research. Because of its wide application, it has to have methods for data verification and validation. It is not a small-time, fly by night application.
This says nothing about what actual verification and validation DragonCon actually does. In the absence of data release, all there is to go by is the terms and conditions page. Without the data release, there is no link to provide that shows what accounts were cancelled or what votes were rejected as violating the rules. You can stop waiting for me to provide one.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 21:17:38
@Lela —
“This says nothing about what actual verification and validation DragonCon actually does.”
That’s my point. You made the claim that DragonCon uses verification methods to avoid ballot-box stuffing, but you actually have no evidence at all that they use such methods.
“In the absence of data release, all there is to go by is the terms and conditions page.”
The terms and conditions page, and the registration page, specifically say:
1. only email addresses are used
2. DragonCon can change any vote any any time at their sole discretion.
They say nothing at all about avoiding ballot-box stuffing. Which is exactly what I keep telling you.
“You can stop waiting for me to provide one.”
I am not surprised that you have no evidence to back up your claim about controls to avoid ballot-box stuffing — because, in reality, there is no such evidence to be had.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 22:05:17
In the same way, you have no evidence to back up your claims of ballot box stuffing at the Dragon Awards, which sort of amounts to defamation.
Since you couldn’t find it, here’s the passage on voting:
Please point me to the passage where they say they will change votes at their discretion.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 22:08:20
If you’re talking about this line, it’s about changing the voting process, not about modifying individual votes.
“DRAGON CON reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel, terminate, modify, or suspend voting should any virus, bug, non-authorized human intervention, fraud or other causes beyond its control corrupt or affect the administration, security, fairness or proper conduct of the voting process.”
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 22:54:11
@Lela —
“In the same way, you have no evidence to back up your claims of ballot box stuffing”
Of course I do. I’ve already pointed out four lines of evidence. You just keep ignoring them — but ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.
“Since you couldn’t find it, here’s the passage on voting:”
Your quote says not a single word about Survey Monkey, nor about how they intend to restrict voting to one person per vote. Just standing up and saying “hey y’all, be nice and only vote once” doesn’t accomplish anything.
Keep trying.
“Please point me to the passage where they say they will change votes at their discretion.”
Seriously? You already quoted one of them yourself. As you yourself posted:
“DRAGON CON reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel, terminate, modify, or suspend voting[….] All decisions regarding the voting process or acceptance of votes shall be final and shall not be subject to challenge or appeal.”
Here are others:
“All decisions regarding the voting process and selection of winners shall be made by DRAGON CON in its sole discretion, shall be final, and shall not be subject to challenge or appeal”
“DRAGON CON reserves the right, at its sole discretion to cancel, terminate, modify or suspend this Award and determine the winners from entries received prior to the date such action is taken, or as otherwise deemed fair and equitable by DRAGON CON. All decisions of the DRAGON CON and its agents regarding the administration of this Award shall be final and binding.”
“If DRAGON CON believes, in its sole discretion, that a violation of these Rules has occurred, it may edit or modify any submission, posting or e-mails”
“THE DRAGON CON GROUP DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE MATERIAL, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, FACILITIES, SERVICES OR OTHER CONTENT ON THE WEBSITE OR ANY WEB WEBSITES LINKED TO THE WEBSITE IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE.”
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 23:19:53
I don’t know what you’re looking for about SurveyMonkey’s relationship to DragonCon. Do you think it’s something nefarious? This is the method they’re using to collect the votes, which is a good quality, proven online application with tools built in for data verification and validation so you can check for fraudulent submissions. It’s owned by an unrelated business entity that provides the collection service to many other organizations. Again, this provides the tools for analysis, but not being associated with the process, I can’t make any kind of statement for DragonCon on how they check for fraud. Here is the page that says they use SurveyMonkey.
As far as the Terms and Conditions go, I think we have radically different interpretations, and more argument isn’t going to settle that. When they say they can modify any submission, email or posting, this appears to be about communications sent to the website rather than about votes.
I think you should be careful about posting allegations of fraud on the part of the Awards online. They also mention the potential for legal action against anyone to tries to undermine the awards process on this same page.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 23:31:51
@Lela —
“I don’t know what you’re looking for about SurveyMonkey’s relationship to DragonCon. Do you think it’s something nefarious?”
LOL.
No, Lela.
You made the claim that the Dragons are using tools from Survey Monkey to eliminate ballot box stuffing. But you haven’t provided one whit of evidence to back up your claim.
That’s what I’m looking for. Any evidence to back up your claim.
“As far as the Terms and Conditions go, I think we have radically different interpretations”
Phrase like “at its sole discretion” and “may edit or modify any submission, posting or e-mails” are very clear, Lela. Those phrases mean that the Dragon administrators can change any vote or any result at their whim.
“I think you should be careful about posting allegations of fraud on the part of the Awards online.”
What fraud? The administrators have told us up front that they can change votes as they like and that they only require a valid email address to count a vote. That’s not fraud — they’ve been very honest and open about both things.
“They also mention the potential for legal action against anyone to tries to undermine the awards process on this same page.”
Don’t try to threaten me, Lela. Truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel, you know.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 23:40:07
Sorry, I’m not going to respond to that. You’ll just have to believe what you want to believe.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 14:49:51
Hm. Vernon? I would have bet on Wong. McGuire? I would have bet on LaValle. Amal El-Mothar. I had no idea there. Bujold for series.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 15:00:11
LMB just won her umpteenth Hugo for the Vorkosigan series. Didn’t win for Penric.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 15:11:40
And in a stunner, Jemisin wins the novel award! I wanted Too Like the Lightning to win, but I was sure that All the Birds in the Sky would. Oh well!
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 15:29:52
I’m not really surprised. It was clearly the “best” if you consider interest and readability. The others were either too hard to read or too ordinary.
Plus, it’s a response to Stix Hiscock.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 19:06:11
@Lela —
“Plus, it’s a response to Stix Hiscock.”
Nonsense.
As it turns out from the nomination breakdowns, which have just been posted, Jemisin had the most nominating votes of any work — before anyone even knew that Hiscock would be making it onto the ballot.
And a fun bit of trivia: VD himself only managed to get 32 first-place votes in the final round of voting. Stick a fork in the puppies — they’re done.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 19:18:12
Jemisin has an adversarial relationship with Vox Day. What better way to respond to his activism than vote for her?
I don’t think it was part of the Puppy strategy to vote in the final round. VD was changed his strategy in the last couple of years, but I don’t think he’s going to give up the activism.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 19:23:43
@Lela —
“Jemisin has an adversarial relationship with Vox Day. What better way to respond to his activism than vote for her?”
Again: Hiscock didn’t even exist on the ballot when Jemisin got the most nominating votes. Therefore, Jemisin can not possibly have been a reaction to Hiscock. Your claim fails. QED.
“I don’t think it was part of the Puppy strategy to vote in the final round.”
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. 😉
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 20:14:25
Sigh. Hiscock on the ballot is actually Vox Day on the ballot.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 20:17:36
@Lela —
“Sigh. Hiscock on the ballot is actually Vox Day on the ballot.”
You’ve moved your goalposts.
But this one also fails, since VD was also not on the ballot at the time Jemisin got the most nominating votes. Remember, there was not yet ANY ballot at that time.
I do wish you’d try for more realistic thinking occasionally and less conspiracy theorizing. You do sometimes have interesting things to say, but you seem to also have this quirk that makes you see conspiracies everywhere.
LikeLike
Aug 11, 2017 @ 22:25:08
Sorry, I’ve got kind of a literary mind, but I think I’m also a fairly critical thinker and a decent political analyst. It’s important to look beyond what people say to their actual meaning. I do have to admit I’m working on theory here, though. I’ve also been recommending studies to help the community analyze what’s actually going on.
P.S. Do you have problems sorting out metaphors sometimes?
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 01:31:27
Wow. Way to beat a dead horse there, Contrarius. Shame it isn’t going to get up off the road and pull your little red wagon any farther.
Lela set forth the whole of the conversation here:
Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc), 94,000 copies.
Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie, (Orbit US; Orbit UK), 8,000 copies.
I read Skin Game all the way through. Fun read. I liked the characters. Nice explosions.
I read Ancillary Sword until I got to the explanation of what an “ancillary” was, in the second or third chapter. Not fun. The characters, I was rooting for them all to die in a fire. Stopped at the ancillary thing. One gross and disgusting detail too many.
What -always- wins the Hugo, Contrarius? Ancillary Sword, or this year’s clone of it, Obelisk Gate. What NEVER wins? A book with 94,000 copies.
Except at the Dragons, last year.
It is as if every year, we get “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” So literary!
Always the same thing. Different details, names, settings, same story. It never changes.
I have read that already. 40,000 times, in different clothing. I’m tired of it. I’m sick to death of it. Tell me a story of the ones who came back and saved that kid, Contrarius. I haven’t seen that story. Just for a bit of variety, I’d like to.
And put some explosions in. I’m a simple person, explosions are what I look for in a book. Kapow! Boom! Crash! Yes, that was sarcasm.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 01:44:30
@phantom —
“Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc), 94,000 copies.
Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie, (Orbit US; Orbit UK), 8,000 copies.”
And let’s extend that further —
Skin Game — 51,890 GR ratings
Ancillary Sword — 23,938 GR ratings
Rise by Brian Guthrie – 74 GR
Space Tripping by Patrick Edwards – 32 GR
Escaping Infinity by Richard Paolinelli – 23 GR
The Secret Kings by Brian Niemeier – 13 GR
Wings of Justice by Michael-Scott Earle – 64 GR
The Heartstone Thief by Pippa DaCosta – 62 GR
A Sea of Skulls by Vox Day – 37 GR
Firebrand by A.J. Hartley – 74 GR
Swan Knight’s Son by John C. Wright – 62 GR
Rachel and the Many Splendored Dreamland by L. Jagi Lamplighter – 31 GR
Star Realms: Rescue Run by Jon Del Arroz – 68 GR
Allies and Enemies: Exiles by Amy J. Murphy – 30 GR
Invasion: Resistance by J.F. Holmes – 2 GR
No Gods, Only Daimons by Kai Wai Cheah – 33 GR
A Change in Crime by D.R. Perry – 10 GR
Another Girl, Another Planet by Lou Antonelli – 8 GR
A Place Outside the Wild by Daniel Humphreys – 86 GR
The Seventh Age: Dawn by Rick Heinz – 54 GR
ZK: Falling by J.F. Holmes – 52 GR
Codename: Unsub by Declan Finn and Allan Yoskowitz – 6 GR
The Bleak December by Kevin G. Summers – 23 GR
Donn’s Hill by Caryn Larrinaga – 21 GR
Live and Let Bite by Declan Finn – 9 GR
Blood of Invidia by Tom Tinney and Morgen Batten – 4 GR
See the difference now?
It’s really hysterical that folks like you keep complaining about supposedly unpopular works winning awards — and then you turn around and defend the nominations of books like the list above that virtually **nobody** is reading.
“I read Skin Game all the way through. Fun read. I liked the characters. Nice explosions.”
Skin Game is lots of fun — and Dresden is a great series. The book just wasn’t suitable for the Hugo Novel category. But the series will be great for the Hugo series category if it’s still around when the next Dresden book comes out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aug 12, 2017 @ 02:32:00
Contrarius said: “The book just wasn’t suitable for the Hugo Novel category.”
I know. Because it wasn’t about horrible people, doing horrible things to each other in some horrible place. Hence my point.
Contrarius said: “And let’s extend that further —”
Let’s see some evidence that GoodReads ratings mean anything first, shall we? Can people post multiple ratings on the same book under different names, thereby stuffing the ballot box? I think they can. Didn’t Lela just finish saying that GoodReads skews heavily female and is therefore an unrepresentative opinion pool? I think she did.
Apples to apples, Contrarius. Sales numbers mean a person was interested enough to buy the book. Goodreads ratings mean jack. The author could be writing them himself.
“It’s really hysterical that folks like you keep complaining about supposedly unpopular works winning awards…”
No, I’m complaining about UGLY works winning awards. I care nothing for their popularity, other than to note that ugly does not sell, and that what sells does not get nominated for the Hugo. Ever.
LikeLike
Aug 12, 2017 @ 02:50:15
@phantom —
“I know. Because it wasn’t about horrible people, doing horrible things to each other in some horrible place. Hence my point.”
Oh, get over it. As I’ve pointed out to you several times previously, if you’d read books like A Closed and Common Orbit or All the Birds in the Sky, you’d know how silly that claim is.
And btw, yes, Skin Game has plenty of horrible people doing horrible things to each other in horrible places — in case you forgot. 😉
“Let’s see some evidence that GoodReads ratings mean anything first”
Been there, done that, see previous posts in this thread.
“Didn’t Lela just finish saying that GoodReads skews heavily female and is therefore an unrepresentative opinion pool? I think she did.”
Sure. But a female-skewed pool isn’t going to make the difference between multi-thousand ratings and single or double-digit ratings.
Keep trying.
“Sales numbers mean a person was interested enough to buy the book.”
Remember that BookScan numbers only cover print sales. They don’t include ebooks, or audio books, or library books, and so on. But Goodreads includes ALL sources of books.
But if you’d like to post some BookScan numbers showing how many books all these low-rating nominees are selling, I’d be interested to see them.
“Goodreads ratings mean jack. The author could be writing them himself.”
Yeah, no. We’re talking about thousands of ratings here.
“No, I’m complaining about UGLY works winning awards. I care nothing for their popularity, other than to note that ugly does not sell, and that what sells does not get nominated for the Hugo. Ever.”
LOL.
The Obelisk Gate is currently ranked #1931 in the Kindle store.
The other books in her Dragon category?
American War by Omar El Akkad – #9357
Walkaway by Cory Doctorow – #14,770
A Place Outside the Wild by Daniel Humphreys – #15,202
The Seventh Age: Dawn by Rick Heinz – #718,246
ZK: Falling by J.F. Holmes – #25,273
Codename: Unsub by Declan Finn and Allan Yoskowitz – #116,069
Go on, tell me again how it’s the HUGOS that are supposedly nominating unpopular books.
ROFLMAO.
Keep trying.
LikeLike