I mentioned this elsethread so I'd like to officially pitch it.

Proposal:
In rounds with preliminaries, do not unlock the "author guessing" portion of the competition until the preliminaries finish and the regular voting unlocks. Restrict the author guessing competition to the finalists.

Reveal the identities of the non-finalist stories' authors at that time. Authors are no longer required to maintain anonymity about non-finalist stories after the finalists are announced.

Benefits:
• Authors of non-finalist stories can discuss their stories and non-anonymously request feedback while voting continues, which keeps the discussion thread more lively and offers a "consolation prize" for lower-rated entrants by giving them early access to feedback discussion. Currently, the discussion thread seems to be dying out in Week 2, because the vast majority of reviews that were going to be written have already been written, and everyone has to twiddle their thumbs for a week until the results are live.

• Post-Writeoff publication of stories on FIMFiction would be spread out over a longer period, rather than a single giant glut of stories the instant the voting ends, so we're not fighting with each other quite as much for clicks and Featurebox slots.

• Trying to do author guesses for 35+ (or, worse, 90+) stories is hopeless. Last round I just threw a few names I recognized at a few stories I liked; I didn't even bother trying to fill a full slate. Many author-guessers seem to be inserting guesses at random, which also corrupts information transmission of the "who did people think I was writing like" variety. A limited author-guess slate addresses these problems. Also, since the top slots seem to be disproportionately occupied by return entrants and well-known authors, there would be better basis for guessing even among casual sleuths.

Drawbacks:
• With only 17 stories and ~17 authors, the author-guessing problem space is small enough that sleuths could easily run stylo on all entries and all entrants' body of work.

• Potential additional confusion about who needs to be anonymous when.

• This involves additional coding for Roger.

4062871
I support this proposal.

What are we supposed to do if we support proposals, again?

4062871
Strong support.

4062871
I'm all for this.

Yes, please. I like everything here.

On the one hand, this ruins a small bit of the mystique. "Ha, I totally bet that Present Perf... Wait, he got eliminated in the prelims? He wrote that? ...Huh." It's a little more mysterious if everything's kept anon until the very end.

Then again, I never considered that model for 35+ authors. It probably doesn't scale for larger competitions, and the cons outweigh the pros. *shrug*

4062871
I'm entirely in favor of this. As you note, what is there for us to do for the next week?

You know, aside from stuff unrelated to the write-off, but that's what the second half of the month is for.

4062871

Well, if all of the rules/conditions for the write-off are posted either at the beginning of each competition thread or in the write-off description (not just story regs like content rating, formatting rules, etc.) including this new one, I am pretty sure that could cut down on some of the confusion.

Also, maybe the drop-down menu of authors can include the names of all of the participants, since it is possible for multiple submission from the same author (the odds of both getting into the finals are slim to none right?). While you could eliminate people who reveal (perhaps falsely) that they only made one story, and also reveal that they didn't make the cut, the list of possible choices for multiple choice are still there to help buffer the reduced list of writing styles to guess from. I think that would help cut down on the lotto-guessing a little bit (fewer stories to match with authors) while still keeping an air of mystery.

It depends on whether we keep the prelim round, but with an ever-increasing number of participants, I can't see us *not* keeping it.

So yeah. Support from here, too.

Mostly I just want to know who the everloving hell wrote Lunna's Ache. :V

4063774
It'd also be nice to see who people thought wrote Lunna's Ache, which we wouldn't see with horizon's proposal.

We could have the author guessing contain all the entries during the prelim round and lock-in the guesses on non-finalists once their authors are revealed.

4063974
Er, how would that work? Do you mean like, "after the prelim round is over, lock the guesses on the authors who didn't make it through"? Because otherwise you'd have to monitor the thread for people identifying themselves, which seems like a pain.

4063974
I like this.

Gives a way to promote early guessing and gives a chance to update for the finals. The rest of the OP I agree with as well. There really isn't any point for the non-finalist stories to remain anon for another week and the benefits outweigh the negatives. Roger loves to code, so that's not a problem, right?

Been thinking about this a bit today, so here's, well, something, lol:

1. Discussion only during prelim round. No reviews published in thread. After prelim round is done, authors who did not make the cut can request a review, which can be performed by anyone who wishes to provide one. Said reviews can be posted in thread, or sent via PM if so desired.

2. Once final round is over, those authors can also request a review, and everyone is free to review anything after results are announced. IMO, this would help keep discussion rolling for the two week period, and prevent posted reviews from unduly swaying other readers' opinions of a story before they read it.

3. Authors out after prelim are free to publish if they wish, but to help keep it organized, what if we setup a bit of a timetable for publishing them? In other words, space them out in a structured manner to A)not flood the site and B)give everyone a chance to catch traction with their stories. A similar timetable can be used for the finalists once voting is all done.

I totally support this idea. Though I do think special care would need to be taken to ensure nobody gets confused about anonymity, because I could easily see that happen.

4064314
Reviewing and discussion are a big part of the socialization process. Anything which discourages people from reviewing stuff is bad, and reviews tend to be what sparks discussion to begin with.

That's why the writeoff group is fun to be in.

4064439

That's true, of course, and I'm not trying to discourage that. (at least not intentionally). I'm just not used to seeing stories (mine or otherwise) critiqued on such a microscopic level; especially when the author has no real chance to respond up front. I know anonymity is part of the game, but I like to think that many of the authors in this round were chomping at the bit to address/clarify the questions, criticisms, and differing interpretations of their works before the conflicting reviews took a toll on their chances of moving on to the finals.

I do still think that a semi-coordinated release schedule for entries to post to Fimfic could be a decent way to manage that piece of things though.

/again, not trying to argue; just trying to clarify my badly stated point

4064836

That's true, of course, and I'm not trying to discourage that. (at least not intentionally). I'm just not used to seeing stories (mine or otherwise) critiqued on such a microscopic level; especially when the author has no real chance to respond up front. I know anonymity is part of the game, but I like to think that many of the authors in this round were chomping at the bit to address/clarify the questions, criticisms, and differing interpretations of their works before the conflicting reviews took a toll on their chances of moving on to the finals.

Well, that's part of why the writeoff is awesome; anonymity makes it much easier for folks to feel comfortable in giving this kind of feedback. It means that any praise or condemnation your story gets is because of your story, not because folks are friends with you (I think most participants here are friends with at least a number of other participants). It means that your story has to stand on its own two feet (or four hooves, as the case may be).

We're all socializing and guessing and commenting and discussing and talking about the stories and what is going on with them without knowing who wrote them, and it really can help make for a better story.

If a lot of folks don't understand your story, then that's often a sign that something went wrong. Remember, we're all on even ground as far as people understanding our stories goes; if a story fails to make it through, then that is usually for a reason.

I know it is a bit unusual, but I think this culture is a good thing and leads to better stories. Just compare the amount of conversation we have to the More Most Dangerous Game competition, which has vastly more entrants but very little public discussion of the relative merits of the stories.

As Horizon pointed out, the main benefit from deanonymizing the stories which don't make the final cut is that it would allow us to engage in further discussion earlier, and spread out our post-mortem of the stories over a longer period of time. The downside is that the guessing game thing we engage in would either have to exclude those stories, or exclude most people from guessing on those stories.

Sounds like a good plan to me ^.^

4064836

especially when the author has no real chance to respond up front.

Yeah, I know how you feel, it's rough at first because responding to criticism is a very strong, basic instinct. But you get used to it after a couple of times. The nice thing too is that after the results are posted author responses begin, and people do pay attention to those and engage with them, so in the end you do get to answer all your critics. It's hard to wait for it at first, but it won't feel that way forever :3

And actually, posting your own review of your story allows you to engage with others who have read it; you can say "well, I see what you said about Twilight here, but I actually thought she was doing such and so", where "your interpretation" is actually your intent as the author. No one knows this because you simply look like a reader sharing your own thoughts on the story and discussing them. You do have to be careful about "knowing too much", but that's not too difficult.

These are the following approaches I am considering:

(1) Enable author guessing for all entries. Reveal non-finalists and lock-in guesses for those stories after prelim round.
(2) Enable author guessing only for finalists. Reveal non-finalists after prelim round.
(3) Enable author guessing for all entries. Reveal all authors at the end of the event. (Current approach.)

The only downside of (1) over (2) is that people who don't read the prelim entries, or who guessed wrong for the prelim entries, will be discouraged from continuing to guess authors. I don't think that's a big deal, since that's more of a fringe thing for people to do anyway.

The main downside I see of (1) or (2) over (3) is people not really being clear on who is and isn't still "anonymous".

4095805

The main downside I see of (1) or (2) over (3) is people not really being clear on who is and isn't still "anonymous".

I can see that confusing new folks.

4095805
It'll be confusing for new people, but I think we stand to gain a lot via (2) in terms of continuing the discussion. Granted, this round had the spreadsheet for the first time, which seemed to shut down a lot of chatter, but chatter we did still (and honestly, we had significantly fewer entries and authors from the last event, which isn't too strange, no need to panic).

Sorry to bring up a bit of an older conversation point, but I'd like to add that Horizon's original point around 'spreading out fic submissions' was indeed a good call. Not just for the non-finalists, but for the finalists to.

As I write this, there are three Writeoff entries already in the feature box. Horizon just posted his story, and unless something odd happens, it's safe to assume that he'll be joining those other stories in the box pretty soon. I suppose the upshot is that Writeoff entries will soon control 57% of the feature box sometime today (not counting the bottom 3 slots). But, as Horizon mentioned in his OP, those four stories will be fighting each other for attention.

4063974
4062871
4095805

I think there was a pretty strong consensus for letting people that do not make the finals reveal themselves after the prelims. Their placement is not affected at that point, and they can still have other stories in the finals.

I strongly support option #1. As an extension, I think the full list of author names for the entire round should remain intact even through the end of final voting.

Everyone can vote on the first week, and votes for the stories that don't make the finals are locked in at the end of the prelim. For the finals week, only the finalist stories are open to voting, and you can change your vote around on only those stories. The guess list contains all the authors from the entire round so as to preserve the possibility that someone wrote more than one story.

Any chance we can vote on this and have it in place for this round? Being a minific, it would be nice to have that extra week to talk about non-finalists and give direct feedback.

My proposal at the top of the thread was for #2. Before #1 was brought up as an alternative, it seems to me like it was getting some pretty overwhelming support. I don't know how the additional suggestion of #1 will change people's opinions between 1 and 2, but I'd say at this point that it's safe to say the anti-#3 sentiment is awfully strong and the implementation details won't change that.

If it comes down to a vote between 1 and 2 I would prefer 2, but honestly at this point I'd just rather have you put in whichever of the two is quicker for you to code and explain, because the author guessing is getting in the way of timely story discussion.

Edit: Just to clarify, my vote is 2 > 1 >>> 3

TBH, author guessing is not a very important part of the contest to me. This makes me personally lean to option 2 a bit, but I think option 1 is the fairest approach for the general participant just because it'll allow every story to have a chance to get in on the guessing. As far as I can tell, they both have the same degree of difficulty regarding explaining who can or cannot out themselves.

In short, my preference is 1 > 2 > 3.

4146968

I'm with 4146368 in the 1 camp, but I absolutely agree on just having whichever is easier implemented, if possible. Of course, if it turns out this is way too late to get anything working in time, I'm also totally fine with giving 3 a second chance by precisely the same argument

(After all, if we find things quieten down in the second week, we can always just discuss which guessing system we should use next time )

4095805
I don't have a strong opinion, but personally I vote for #1. Even though, given the nature of prelims, I'm guessing it would mostly work out the same as #2 anyway, if you spot a story that might not make finals and you're sure you know who wrote it you could still pick up a point.

4095805
I'll vote for #1. Is there a penalty for revealing yourself besides disqualifying your story? Because if not, there's no reason to stay anonymous after getting disqualified anyway. Proposal #1 removes any hinkiness that might have re: author guessing. I don't think it will be excessively confusing as long as people understand when they can stop concealing their authorship of their own stories, which would be automated under #1.

VOTE #1 FOR #1!

I vote for whatever Horizon would prefer. Consider me to be his hollow puppet.

Please don't think about the hoof.

4147014

the same degree of difficulty regarding explaining who can or cannot out themselves.

Yeah. In both cases, it's just "Do not identify yourself as the author of a story until the writeoff.me website does".

The explanation of the author guessing for #1 is more convoluted than for #2, but it does allow guessing for every story; for me that's not as important a feature, but I'll let people who care more about author guessing make that choice.

I like #2 for simplicity and a narrower focus on the author-guessing part. Particularly for something like the minific contests... having like 90 fics to feel like I need to I need to guess on is overwhelming and frustrating. Having a 30 or so finalist pool makes it feel reasonable and a test of actual skill.

That being said, I'd still much rather have #1 than #3. By a whole lot.

#2 makes the most sense to me, and of the other choices, I'm more partial to #1 than #3 by a fair bit. That said, I'm on board for pretty much whatever.

I'd slightly prefer 1 over 2. I'd definitely prefer either over 3.

#1 Please.

#1 or #2 is good for me.

I'd prefer 1 over 2, but not by much. Both are better than 3.

Looks like it's gonna be (1).

One issue remains to be resolved:

Should the candidate authors after the prelim round be only those that are in the finals, or all participants?

4149189
I think "only those in the finals". It makes guessing them easier, but I think that's acceptable - and it also means that people don't have to pretend to still be in it when they're not.

4149403
I agree with the dragon in the fancy hat.

I think I see what 4149189 is saying. In rounds like the minifics where many contestants write multiple entries, the fact that PonyUsername99 wrote two non-finalists may or may not mean that they have a third in the finals, and it does actually reveal some information to have the author guessing page produce a list of the finalists.

That said, I agree with 4149403. Guessing ~25 fics from among ~25 authors is already formidable enough; guessing from the full slate of 68 authors, 40+ of which are instantly wrong, takes some fun out of it for me, because it gets overwhelming. Not to mention that if an author has no finalists, they currently have no incentive not to say so (because their fic isn't going to get disqualified from the finals…) and so that information will leak anyway.

Were you thinking of having non-finalists' names be revealed on the results page after the preliminaries close, or is this just going to be a rule change, i.e. "you are allowed to reveal your identity once a story is locked out of the finals"? My original proposal was the former (it's right there in the thread title) but given subsequent discussion that's worth asking.

4152781
Author guessing aside, I'm totally cool with people identifying themselves for any stories that do not make the finals. If this is displayed by the site or not isn't really an issue other than the guessing.

For the author guessing, we need one of two thing to happen:
1) the guessing on stories that do not make the finals needs to be locked after the prelim
or
2) the author guessing only applies to the finals

I'm partial to #1, but I am not fully opposed to #2.

I am very much in favor of the option (1), with (2) following as second choice.

Question: Is the new policy going to be implemented for the current event, or only for subsequent events? This may have been answered, but my memory is hazy.

4160205
I suppose we'll find out in five and a half hours, eh?

What are people's thoughts on this change having been implemented?

I don't think we saw all of the benefits I hoped we'd see (more focus on discussing feedback, the "consolation prize" effect), but it was a definite improvement regardless. The second week wasn't as dead as it was last time, and the burst after finals ended wasn't quite such a deluge.

Also, I wouldn't have done author guessing at all this round if the finalist thing hadn't been implemented. Even at 35 stories to guess it was pretty intimidating.

4199579
I think it was a good idea. It kept 100+ entries from being discussed all at once and gave us a little bit to do at the start of the traditionally dead week two.

4199579 I liked it, but I have no previous experience. I actually considered trying author guessing, (and I'll likely at least roll some dice next time,) and I wouldn't have if it weren't narrowed somewhat.

It's really neat how you're continually developing and improving your project. I'll just say thanks here for all the hard work you've put in.