|
awrigley
|
|
|
|
...why Autumn Flush got a distinctly middling review and went from #6 to #2. I actually thought the review would knock it out of the top ten. It makes me think that there are quirks in YWO's SD calculation, that 8 reviews are not enough for it to work. If you think of YWO's ttateotm (top ten at the end of the month) as an award, then its value to the writer's ego and prospective agents/publishers would be much greater if the minimum number of reviews was 24 rather than 8. Yes, it would take a long time to get there, but this would make for more realistic 'bestsellers'. My other point being that at 24 reviews, SD would start to work properly. Andrew?
Memory... What was that?
|
|
NickP
|
|
|
|
Agreed. But I haven't seen any evidence of members having the patience to wait for 5 reviews let alone 28.
"...the likes of NickP can rant on if they like"
|
|
spotty leopard
|
|
|
|
Nick, veering off topic for a moment, why don't you change your signature so people can click on it to visit your blog? You'd get more visitors, I'm sure.
LexiTrying to be a Time Lord: click here for my blog
|
|
Miller
|
|
|
|
And going straight back on topic, also tend to agree. SD variations seem arcane to say the least, though much seems to depend upon when the SD actually kicks in. Always wondered if that's why we're forbidden from seeing the marks in the first four reviews. But more reviews to chart seems to make more sense and likely to create more realistic 'bestsellers'.
Wonder what today's Top Ten would be on that basis? Of the current TT 'charters', only 'A Candle in the Dark' would be listed.
|
|
NickP
|
|
|
|
Quote: spotty leopard, Tuesday, 6 Oct 2009 13:56Nick, veering off topic for a moment, why don't you change your signature so people can click on it to visit your blog? You'd get more visitors, I'm sure. Oh Yeah... Not that I blog more than once a year. Might start now...
"...the likes of NickP can rant on if they like"
|
|
AntCity
|
|
|
|
Trouble is, if 24 reviews were the minimum to go Top Ten, that would benefit those with more time to devote to getting there. Why not just take an average of overall points scored in reviews and get rid of SD if its not working? You could still have a requirement to have a certain number of reviews achieved before entering the charts.
|
|
NickP
|
|
|
|
Quote: AntCity, Tuesday, 6 Oct 2009 18:00Trouble is, if 24 reviews were the minimum to go Top Ten, that would benefit those with more time to devote to getting there. How?
"...the likes of NickP can rant on if they like"
|
|
spotty leopard
|
|
|
|
Quote: NickP, Tuesday, 6 Oct 2009 17:10Quote: spotty leopard, Tuesday, 6 Oct 2009 13:56Nick, veering off topic for a moment, why don't you change your signature so people can click on it to visit your blog? You'd get more visitors, I'm sure. Oh Yeah... Not that I blog more than once a year. Might start now... Gah! I clicked on the link! It was as if you were suddenly in the room. Don't do that!
LexiTrying to be a Time Lord: click here for my blog
|
|
Lawrence
|
|
|
|
Sorry to butt in on Andrew's thread - but what is the point to this blogging malarkey? It seems to me just as sad as all the unpublished authors here who've set up their own websites. It's all part of the delusion, isn't it? That you are a writer who is unpublished because you haven't been picked up by an agent yet, as opposed to a writer who hasn't written anything worth publishing, so therefore there must be an audience out there for your day-to-day mental ramblings. No, there isn't - apart from those who read your pathetic attempts at communication with the unknown outside world out of curiosity and, ultimately, contempt for your arrogance. Anyway, back to the SD...
I have had a similar nonsensical yoyoing with my own story, Andrew. A low-scoring review has taken it upward, and a review with almost all 5s has taken it down the chart. The system may be arcane, but at least it's fun - and we can rest easy in the knowledge that chart position bears as much relation to the quality of the writing as the writer's presumption does to their abilty.
|
|
NickP
|
|
|
|
Quote: Lawrence, Tuesday, 6 Oct 2009 19:47Sorry to butt in on Andrew's thread - but what is the point to this blogging malarkey? It seems to me just as sad as all the unpublished authors here who've set up their own websites. It's all part of the delusion, isn't it? That you are a writer who is unpublished because you haven't been picked up by an agent yet, as opposed to a writer who hasn't written anything worth publishing, so therefore there must be an audience out there for your day-to-day mental ramblings. No, there isn't - apart from those who read your pathetic attempts at communication with the unknown outside world out of curiosity and, ultimately, contempt for your arrogance. Anyway, back to the SD... I have had a similar nonsensical yoyoing with my own story, Andrew. A low-scoring review has taken it upward, and a review with almost all 5s has taken it down the chart. The system may be arcane, but at least it's fun - and we can rest easy in the knowledge that chart position bears as much relation to the quality of the writing as the writer's presumption does to their abilty. Law! The purpose of blogs is straightforward. Gives the blogger the chance to talk about him (or her) self NON-STOP. Soon gets a bit lonely.
"...the likes of NickP can rant on if they like"
|