Sore Eyes

As much as I have to admit that it would be a thrilling prospect to earn recognition for my weblog by winning one of these awards, I have to say, I'm pretty much against them.

I don't know what it is, but I always feel that the thin end of the wedge is over-represented and the more popular weblogs tend to be the ones nominated, which strikes me as a distinct lack of imagination on the part of the nominators, rather than a measurement of popularity or quality.

I withdrew my name from consideration. See my blog for details.

there are a lot of weblogs on that list? do you think the judges took the time to read them all? i'm thinking no. but perhaps i'm just cynical and jaded.

Martin:
Given that the popular sites by definition have more fans, and thus voters, than the rest of us it's hard to see how they wouldn't feature strongly in a popular vote. Short of repeat nominees withdrawing their names from consideration, all that could change that would be a rule change specifying that a site can't be nominated two years running, or a complete revamp of how the long list is sifted. (Which might happen anyway in the light of this year's shenanigans.)

If you look at the long list for this year's awards there were plenty of less famous weblogs nominated, so perhaps the real problem is that they don't clear the hurdle of the judging/sifting stage of the process. One solution might be to replace the judging/sifting stage with a second round of voting where the long list is published so that voters who may have voted a straight MetaFilter/Kottke/Little Yellow Different ticket can see what other people found worth reading. This second round of voting could then produce a list of finalists which would be voted on as at present. If it turns out that the initial nominations stage is swamped by nominations, it might be necessary to require a minimum number of votes to get on the nominations list for the second round of voting.

This system would at least serve to give the less widely read nominees some exposure, as opposed to the present system where only the finalists get the attention.

(Given how controversial just about anything relating to the Bloggies is becoming this year, I should probably make it clear that when I use the term "a straight MetaFilter/Kottke/Little Yellow Different ticket" I'm simply stringing together the names of three very good, widely read weblogs. I am in no way implying that the authors of said sites are campaigning or colluding with anyone. I just wanted to mention three sites which are widely known as high quality examples of their respective type of weblog, and which might well be expected to show up in nominations for weblog-related awards.)

Michele:
I'd read about your withdrawal earlier in the day, but didn't got the chance to post about it until much later in the day. You'll probably have seen my post on the subject by now, so I won't repeat myself here.

Kristen:
If you thought you were cynical and jaded when you wrote that, how do you feel now? :-(