tallying rankings of Uncollected Wolfe

The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 24 Mar 2002
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3079

Michael Andre-Driussi24 Mar 2002, 20:33original
I am toying with the idea of how to create a composite built up of votes, rankings. It wouldn't be done online here--I think people would send me emails using a ballot I would post here. I would post results here. We really don't want to clog up this area with all the gathering-up of information. It is hard to see how to organize the ballot, when new stories are appearing all the time (!) (Go Gene, go!), but then the simple solution came to me: by decades. So participants would be ranking the uncollected stories of the 70s as one group, the 80s as another, etc. Ranking would be 1 for best, 2 for second best, etc. There would also be some kind of mark to make for "I haven't read it." Maybe even one for "I read it but can't remember it"? So there would be no "blanks" on the ballot--every story would have a response. (And we would find the most read and the least read stories.) The 1970s ballot would look something like this: ==== Going to the Beach It's Very Clean King Under the Mountain Loco Parentis A Method Bit in "B" Remembrence to Come Robot's Story Tarzan of the Grapes Thou Spark of Blood ==== But hmmm. The decade scheme, while breaking the nearly 50 stories into manageable chunks, might lead to overall distortions. That is, comparing stories from different decades would be like comparing apples and oranges. Anyway, the whole thing is just an idea. People who would gladly participate by voting in such a project should send me private email. If there are enough potential participants to warrant it, perhaps we shall do it. =mantis= SIRIUS FICTION booklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley 42 Lexicons left until OP! http://www.siriusfiction.com/

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.