Sep 1 2009
Dear Author on withdrawing from BBAW
A couple of weeks ago Dear Author received a number of emails congratulating us on being nominated for different categories of the BBAW, the Book Blogger Appreciation Award. (THANK YOU! to those who nominated us). This award was set up by a blogger by the handle, My Friend Amy, last year and burgeoned into a great event for 2009. As a blogger who has run contests and the tournament, DABWAHA, I know how difficult and challenging this must be to run and it certainly deserves kudos for that.
The award program is in its nascency. Over 1,000 nominations were made and anyone could self nominate. Emails were then sent to the nominees which told them in which category they were nominated and then asked for three things:
- five posts that exemplified the category
- Other Social networks you use to promote your blog
- Any challenges or memes you host for the book blogging community.
The five posts would then be judged by a panel and you would be shortlisted but you could not be shortlisted in more than one category. When the initial notices were sent, we were given about 72-24 hours (it varied from nomination to nomination) to return our top five blog posts in the various categories.
The categories were confusing and duplicative. While Amy was very receptive to email queries the information was sparse. For example, Dear Author was nominated in Best Reviews and Best General Review Blog along with a few other categories. Frankly, there are simply too many categories (an issue I have with the Romantic Times Awards). We collated our reviews/posts as best as possible but there was no time frame limitation or content limitation (i.e. the post could be a guest post and not one authored by the specific blogger).
Over the weekend, a blogger noted that one of the nominees, nominated in several categories, was someone who took money for a review. This blogger was offended by the notion that a blogger appreciation award would include someone who took money for review. The response of BBAW was this blogger would not make it past the judging panel but that the blogger would not be removed from consideration.
This raises a host of concerns, none of which are related to the issue of paid reviewing, which I will get to below. First, there was some suggestion that the blogger had self nominated. If you are going to accept self nominations, I don’t think it is appropriate to reveal who self nominated and who did not. Second, if the blogger’s nomination is so easily dismissed in the judging panel it seems that it is not just the content that the judging panel is considering. In other words, what if the paid reviewer blog posts were stellar?
The entire thing came full circle when My Friend Amy posted about the Dark Side of Twitter and how public criticism of the BBAW caused her to react hastily. She commented that that the original blogger did not have Amy’s best interests at heart or the blogging community when making the criticisms and that “I didn’t have money on the line, only my reputation. Sadly, I know that I have lost this with some people I respect.” The fact is that Amy’s reputation is not tied to criticism of BBAW because if that were true, it would make the inverse also true: that the success of BBAW inflates Amy’s reputation. I am certain that BBAW is not intended to glorify or defame one person, but rather celebrate the success of the community.
As with any new and emerging entity, there are growing pains. Criticism of the BBAW is not criticism of Amy personally but rather of a public entity meant to represent something for the book blogging community. In order for it to be robust and meaningful award, it must withstand criticism.
For all these reasons, Dear Author has withdrawn itself from BBAW, not because it isn’t a worthy award or because we don’t support community blogging but because the award is something we just would not feel comfortable accepting if we should win (I know that sounds presumptuous because against 1000 nominations with heavyweights like Ron Hogan, Sarah Weinman, Smart Bitches and the like there was a very good chance we wouldn’t even be shortlisted).
I don’t know if I agree with the exclusion of paid reviewers or whether I agree with the inclusion. The blog awards are for things as diverse as the best “meme” and the most extravagant giveaways. I can’t imagine why a paid reviewer should be excluded from something like that. It doesn’t appear that all the categories are devoted to reviewing, indeed, many are not.
I don’t know what BBAW is purported to represent or the guidelines by which content/blogger/nomination is judged. I suspect that as time goes on all these things will become transparent. Ultimately, we simply do not know enough about the award and what it stands for and who it purports to represent to be able to participate.
Tomorrow, I am going to blog about book reviewing and money.
Send to Kindle
BBAW – My Personal Experience | Monkey Bear Reviews
Sep 02, 2009 @ 04:31:10
[...] unethical and that the blog should be disqualified. My Friend Amy declined to do so. As a result, Jane from Dear Author has opted to withdraw her blog from BBAW and SB Sarah is considering doing the [...]
Sep 02, 2009 @ 04:52:05
I was unaware until I read this post that bloggers could nominate themselves. This, in itself, seems to place the value of the awards in question.
I agree that My Friend Amy and crew are trying to do an admirable thing, but constructive (or even non-constructive) criticism is inevitable and generally leads to improvement over time if properly received.
As with most things, transparency is a good thing.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 05:00:35
Jane, I see where you’re coming from. I also considered withdrawing but decided against it. I love the concept of BBAW and I feel it can only be improved from within. The basic nomination system is – in my opinion – flawed. If people are allowed to self-nominate, and over 1000 blogs made the long list, why not simply ask all book bloggers to enter themselves in the categories they feel best reflect their blogs? Alternatively, eligibility for the long list could be confined to those blogs which receive at least five nods in a particular category. In other words, make BBAW nominations open to absolutely everyone, or make it more exclusive.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 05:05:46
Jane, being a pest, I just want to understand your reasons. They are, if I understand, that …
1. The categories were confusing and duplicative
2. Amy broke confidentiality by revealing that a particular blogger self-nominated
3. Amy’s suggestion that “this blog would not make it past the review panel” based on being paid for reviews, then it’s not clear what criteria the judges will be using.
If I got you, I agree with you on all three points. I also agree that blogs who are paid for reviews should be accepted, at least this year, until some kind of policy on commercial blogs can be worked out (and, like you, I don’t know why having a blog that gets paid somehow is unfair. As you say, they might write great posts.)
My own view is that it’s nascent, and Amy is doing the best she can as she goes along — God help her, having to deal with 1000 bloggers — and we need to work as a community here.
I understand you and other bloggers have to do what they feel is right, but I also think BBAW is just kind of a large meme which doesn’t mean much, so to me the serious tone of the posts is out of whack. I thought BBAW was more about fun along the way, and the community aspect. Criticism may well be deserved, and it should happen. Perhaps the bloggers who don’t like the process can form a kind of workgroup with Amy for next year. But I am just feeling very bad for Amy, and wondering how all of these protests midstream are going to help her and her team of volunteers right now.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 05:58:58
Although I’m largely indifferent to the idea of blogging awards, I can’t help but jump in with an opinion.
While I’m sorry that you decided to withdraw, I agree with – or rather, understand – the points you and Jessica made. I don’t see what happened as a bad thing. Like some say, it might give Amy and some others a better idea of the BBAW’s criteria and categories next year or the year after.
However, the issue with the self-nomination? There is quite a few legitimate awards that accept self-nominations, ranging from (as you noted) the RITAs to the Academy Awards. How a nomination got in is irrelevant because it’s the votes that count.
As to whether it’d affect the value of awards? It doesn’t, really. Awards are a means of raising awareness as well as to give award-winning people a likely well-deserved pat on back.
(grins) Should be interesting. I’ve sworn I’d not make a response as I have a strong (and horribly long-winded) opinion about this topic, so let’s see if I could resist the calling. :D
Sep 02, 2009 @ 05:59:49
This is a shame. I feel terrible for Amy. I’m only a lurker – have never posted on her blog, but she seems like such a nice person. I do understand your pov though.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 06:32:14
@Amy S Part of the point that I am trying to make is that criticism of the BBAW is not criticism of BBAW. This should not have any affect on Amy’s reputation.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 06:33:34
@Jessica I guess I am trying to be respectful of the effort that those involved with BBAW are undertaking.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 06:49:35
I don’t understand why, exactly, DA would not feel comfortable with accepting should it (they?) win any awards.
Several issues with the BBAW are noted: the confusing categories, the release of nomination status, the questions about the judging process, and My Friend Amy’s evident linking of BBAW’s success to her own.
I don’t see which of these, if any, are the reason DA would feel uncomfortable? I just feel like I’m missing something. Is it like buying a car a few years after that model is introduced, after the bugs are worked out of the design?
Sep 02, 2009 @ 06:56:24
For all these reasons, Dear Author has withdrawn itself from BBAW, not because it isn't a worthy award or because we don't support community blogging but because the award is something we just would not feel comfortable accepting if we should win
Sorry, but my interpretation of your post is that the award isn’t worthy because of the issues you outlined above. Question: Did you write a letter to the award organization outlining the above concerns cuz it kind of sounds like you didn’t prior to writing this post and withdrawing your entries? Given the volunteer nature of the award and the amount of work they put into this, don’t you think that they at least deserved the opportunity to get their act together and give you an official response about your concerns prior to going public with them? And really what’s DA’s responsibility in accepting the nominations without due diligence in finding out about the organization and the criteria used in the award. I mean if we’re going to attach a high level of scrunity and seriousness to these awards, then you must also attach that same level of scrunity to Dear Author’s participation to begin with.
And, hey, I don’t have a problem with your decision and the reasoning behind it. But I’m with Jessica that it seems a bit out of whack.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 07:00:27
@AQ We had very little time to investigate all the contours of the award. As I stated in the post, we received our nominations in a very short time period before we were required to submit the five posts for each nomination (I think we had six) that BEST fit the vague category descriptions. So perhaps we should have spent more time investigating the award and less time trying to meet the deadline.
We did inform the group that we were withdrawing before writing the post. The reasons that I wrote the post was because I felt it was important that other bloggers feel like criticism of the BBAW could be made in the open since there were several people arguing that this should be kept private. If the award is public and a reflection of the community, then so to must be the criticism.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 07:02:55
@RStewie I don’t know what to say other than what I did in the post. We don’t know what the awards really stand for and with the nebulous description of the award and categories and who is part of th eawards and who cannot, DA does not want to be involved at this time. If it is just a fandom circle jerk, then that is even more reason not to be involved. I choose to treat this award seriously out of respect for those who have created it who obviously take it seriously instead of intimating that its a worthless award not worthy of consideration.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 07:22:34
That makes sense. I appreciate your reply to my comment.
Honestly, if you’re uncomfortable with it, I think you SHOULD opt out. It’s just the list of reasons didn’t add up to me.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 08:04:42
Well, it looks like BBAW had the right idea but they just didn’t know how to execute it. First, I wouldn’t have accepted each and every nomination. I’d have culled the blogs that had the most nominations and gone from there. Didn’t need all those categories either but hey, I’m on the sidelines looking in. Sorta speak. I hope Amy doesn’t get discouraged by the criticism. It’s just growing pains.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 08:53:23
Jane, I didn’t mean to imply that you should’ve kept your criticism private. On the contrary, I think public discourse is appropriate. What I was asking about was whether or not you wrote a letter to them asking them to give you an official explanation/position regarding the BBAW response/twittering incident prior to withdrawing or going public. Unless I’m mistaken this individual expressed a belief at what would happen not at what did happen. If that’s incorrect, please let me know.
Anyway, this is where my disconnect comes into play. Dear Author has a high level of visibility, a high level of credibility and a fairly big readership. When Dear Author criticizes Amazon, RWA or publishing, Dear Author has the ability to potentially influence policy or public opinion. Or at the very least start a rousing conversation. With an organization of volunteers and awards, Dear Author has the ability to kill.
Should BBAW be held accountable, have written criteria, etc. ABSOLUTELY. The more transparency they have, the more credibility they can gain.
But from the outside looking in, I think DA a missed step and that was allowing the organization the opportunity to address Dear Author’s concerns to their response and the twitter commentary. Yes, this can and should be made public. And, no, that didn’t mean that Dear Author had to keep their entries in the competition.
It just meant that you give this volunteer organization a short period of time an opportunity to get its shit together and address your concerns before you publically post your concerns. After all, the the nascency nature of the awards and its organization were knowns right from the beginning and if you’re going to hold them to such a high standard (and, yes, I think they should be if they want to grow and become a well-respected award), then you must also hold Dear Author to an even higher standard when Dear Author finds itself to be the more powerful organization. Of course, maybe BBAW is a bigger event than I realize or maybe I’m holding Dear Author to too high of a standard.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 09:04:10
Jane, sorry, I know you weren’t criticisng Amy, I just wanted to express my feeling a bit sorry for her because she did sound a bit upset in that blog post of hers when she thought she’d lost the good opinion of people who she respected.
I wasn’t saying anything about you being critical of her. I know you weren’t. You and her and both lovely and your remarks about BBAW are just and I know where you’re coming from. :)
Sep 02, 2009 @ 09:06:47
*are both lovely
Sep 02, 2009 @ 09:24:27
@AQ As for asking the organizers for a response regarding the twittering incident, again, I am confused here. The responses were all public. BBAW posted on its blog its response to the complaint about the pay per review blogger. Amy commented on a couple different blogs and then posted publicly about how the whole situation was handled. What was I supposed to email them privately and ask?
I guess I view DA differently than you do. DA is simply one blog amidst a number of blogs in the greater community. Why should DA dictate to BBAW how to run its organization? I think it would be awfully presumptuous of us to go to the organizers of BBAW and say “boy, we aren’t going to be a party to this until you change x, y, and z things.” What I do think is appropriate for us to do is now that we have had time to think about it and at the invitation of the the BBAW who stated on their blog that if people felt uncomfortable they could withdraw their nomination, that we withdraw.
I had no intention of blogging about our withdrawal until Amy posted her article on the dark side of twitter because while I don’t fully support Rat’s arguments, I do not think that criticism of the BBAW is criticism of Amy or that it harms her reputation or that criticism should be kept silent. The idea that there is some kind of cultured silence for this community award is disturbing to me.
BBAW is being publicized by publishers (I saw mention of it in the Hachette newsletter this morning) and across the breadth of the book blogging community. I hardly think that DA will “kill” it because it chooses not to be involved this year.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 13:05:15
Jane, we’re not talking about the same thing.
I do think that DA’s position in the blogging world is a little different than you imply in your response; however, I never meant to imply that DA should dictate to anyone and what you describe isn’t even close to where my mind was at.
So I’ll take the hit for my lack of clarity and just exit rather ungracefully now.
AQ
Sep 02, 2009 @ 14:49:22
One of the most difficult things here is that we are all aware that Amy is taking the BBAW very personally. But for me, at least, that’s part of the concern. If the BBAW is to have the kind of respect and regard Amy so clearly wants it to have, it must be separated from her as a person, and people need to make that separation, in the same way we separate an author from her book. Because isn’t that exactly what we say when an author talks about how her books are like children, etc.?
As for emailing her privately with concerns, I would be very, very uncomfortable as a nominee knowing that other nominees were privately emailing the contest administrator and asking for clarifications or explanations or even exceptions. Not only does that create the foundation for accusations of inequitable treatment, IMO, but it gets back to the whole issue of clarity and consistency around the rules that started this whole inquiry. In other words, nominees need, IMO, to be able to discern the rules/guidelines/regulations collectively, not in a piecemeal or a “well she told ME this” kind of way. And I am NOT offering this as a criticism of Amy, merely as an explanation of my own discomfort with the evolving nature of the rules here. Yes I know it’s a young process, and yes things will naturally evolve. But I was ambivalent right from the start about the nominations, and the lack of clarity around categories, criteria, and the like was at the heart of my ambivalence.
And, as Jane said, nominees were given so little time to submit entries for consideration (this was another aspect of the process that concerned me, too), that it was a little bit of a rock and a hard place situation, IMO. On the one hand, you don’t want to be all assholey and disrespectful to the people who nominated you and to the BBAW folks by immediately saying ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ and yet there wasn’t a lot of time or information available to do extensive research. So my opinion was/is that you kind of move forward and hope that things become more clear and more concrete in a good way.
For me, the issue wasn’t that the paid blogger was eligible, it was the idea that it wasn’t really a problem because said blogger wouldn’t likely advance very far anyway. That concerned me, honestly, because it’s like saying that as long as the “right” blogs advanced, the process was legitimate. And that’s not only an issue of fairness, IMO, but also of popularity. What if the blog in question were very popular and moved right to the top in voting – would that make the nomination legitimate or would it de-legitimate the award? Do you really want to rely on the process itself to set the rules, or do you want the rules in place such that the process facilitates the best examples of what the award is supposed to celebrate and reward? Whatever that may be.
I think it’s fantastic that the blogging community is trying to recognize outstanding contributors to this emerging form of online engagement, whether you see blogging primarily as communication, entertainment, information-delivery, or the like. I think the BBAW is a fabulous idea, and that there are so many under-recognized and under-appreciated blogs out there that could use a higher level of visibility. It’s an amazingly dynamic community right now, and one that needs continued nurturing and diversification. So bravo to Amy and crew for trying to facilitate that. I just hope they can find their way to being a little bit more clear and decisive about what precisely they are rewarding among bloggers and what the criteria is for that recognition. Because IMO that’s ultimately what’s going to bring the BBAW the respect Amy and others want for it.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 16:50:28
Am I the only person who hasn’t heard of BBAW before now?
Sep 02, 2009 @ 18:49:20
Just as an aside, I want to make the point that not everyone is aware of that. I know I wasn’t before I read the comments here. I don’t have a Twitter account, and so I have not been following this and other controversies.
I have recently been getting the impression that Twitter, is, among many other things, providing a new teapot for internet tempests. That makes it difficult for those of us without Twitter accounts to follow the brouhahas. Of course, to some degree our confusion is on us.
But IMO it would be less confusing if folks didn’t assume that everyone knows how Amy feels about DA withdrawing from BBAW, which authors were on which side of the #romfail arguments, which blogger is dissing which other blogger, et cetera.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 18:53:05
@Janine: Amy made a blog post on how she felt her reputation was tied to criticism of the BBAW. It’s linked to in the blog post above. I don’t know what she said on Twitter as I don’t follow her.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 19:04:04
@Janine: I was actually referring to this passage from Jane’s post (inclusive of Amy’s blog post and comments, which were linked to there):
Sep 02, 2009 @ 19:17:04
My bad, sorry. It just seems like lately there have been so many posts (not just here, but all over the romance community) referencing Twitter that it’s hard not to get confused if you don’t have a Twitter account, which for the moment at least, I have chosen not to have.
I did read the whole post including Jane’s mention of Amy’s post, The Dark Side of Twitter, but I haven’t read Amy’s original post. The quote in the post above didn’t convey to me that she was taking the BBAW very personally; I just took the words (read out of context) to mean that she felt she had not made a good impression on others with her actions in regard to the BBAW.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 19:34:10
@Janine: Well, I can tell you that I have absolutely no idea what, if anything Amy is saying about this on Twitter, lol. But to me, when someone says they feel their reputation is being compromised, and they’re a civilian blogger, that registers as personal to me.
I understand your frustration re. Twitter, because I’m frustrated too, although my own frustration is a bit different. It’s that for all the blogged brouhaha about stuff that supposedly takes place on Twitter, not everyone is actually reading the stuff they’re speaking authoritatively (and often negatively) about. Like Karen Ranney, who states on her blog as a fact that Jane dislikes erotic Romance, based on #romfail (a Twitter phenomenon), even though she admits to never having heard of or following #romfail. So while I totally get that you can feel left out of the loop by not being a Twitter user, it can be equally frustrating when you are and when people feel comfortable judging what you’re doing without even, you know, checking it out.
In this case, I really did feel that I was safe with my comment (Twitter never entered my mind while writing it, actually, lol), but I see your larger point about context. Just know that it’s a concern from both ends of the Twitter user spectrum. ;)
Sep 02, 2009 @ 19:49:05
I see what you are saying, Robin. I guess when I hear that someone is taking something very personally I tend to take that to mean major hurt feelings, and I did get a sense that this might be the case for My Friend Amy, but more from Amy S.’s comments here than from the quote in Jane’s post.
It was silly of me to assume that the whole thing exploded on Twitter from the title of My Friend Amy’s post and nothing more. I think it happened because I was already feeling out of the loop before today.
And I totally hear you on your frustration with non-Twitter users who make assumptions based on discussions they haven’t read. Sometimes the internet reminds me of the fable about the blindfolded men and the elephant. It’s like we’re all groping in the dark with different parts of this creature, and no one has the full picture.
I find myself opting out of a lot of discussions because I don’t have the time or energy to follow them in their entirety, and when I only follow them in part I’m just as apt to make silly assumptions as anyone else. As I just did here.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 20:09:39
@Janine: The whole Twitter thing reminds me of when blogs were really emerging in the Romance community, and all of a sudden it was about messageboards and lists v. blogs. Now it’s apparently about blogs v. Twitter. I don’t even know about Facebook and MySpace, as both of those are totally unappealing to me. But I do think some of the current, ah, energy expended in debating various things reflects both the growth of these new media platforms and the rapid diversification of the blogosphere. I think you’re seeing a lot of positioning going on, a lot of place-finding, etc. And it can be both fascinating and frustrating, energizing and tiring, depending on the issue, the day, and the level of involvement one wants to/does have.
Sep 02, 2009 @ 20:16:05
@Janine Whoops. I was wrong. I do follow My Friend Amy on Twitter so either she said nothing on Twitter about this issue or I totally missed it. I hope she isn’t hurt by a discussion/criticism about BBAW as it is not about her but the award and award process itself.
Sep 03, 2009 @ 01:10:12
I have nothing substantive to add about Amy or BBAW, but rather just wanted to make a comment about how the honesty and transparency here at DA are exemplified by the above public conversation. (And how’s that for a wordy sentence!) This kind of respectful discourse is one of the things that sets this blog apart, and I loved reading it and knowing that these kinds of discussions are happening in this community. :)
Sep 03, 2009 @ 04:20:05
Janine: sorry my comments earlier confused you. I’m just being silly and overemotional. In hindsight it was a bit patronising of me to say that I felt terrible for Amy. This whole issue is probably just a hiccup and BBAW will turn out to be wonderfully rewarding for everyone in the end.
Sep 03, 2009 @ 07:30:04
@Amy S Don’t apologize! this is all part of the discussion and I thank you for contributing.
Gas, Grass Or Ass ~ Nobody Rides For Free | The Naughty Bits
Sep 03, 2009 @ 08:23:08
[...] that note, do I think Dear Author and Smart Bitches have sold some of their own image in promoting say only Sony eBook Readers? Hell [...]
Sep 03, 2009 @ 12:08:33
@Jane: Thanks. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
@Amy S: Like Jane says, you have nothing to apologize for!!! If anyone should apologize here, it’s me. And I do.
Sep 03, 2009 @ 12:11:56
@Robin: Interesting comparison of Twitter to blogs. Although I love the diversity of the internet, it can also make it difficult to navigate. I know I miss a lot of good discussions simply because I don’t have the time to blog hop. With the addition of Twitter, things have gotten more frustrating because I can’t read the hashtag pages without getting an account, so even when a little bit of time frees up, I can’t catch up on whatever it is that happened.
Sep 03, 2009 @ 13:14:08
@Amy S: I think it would be virtually impossible for anyone in Amy’s position not to feel some personal upset. Just like I’m sure less than stellar reviews may make an author feel personally upset. Because as human beings we take things personally that were not at all meant that way.
The bigger dilemma, IMO, comes in deciding whether we must always like, want to be part of, or agree with everything someone does, just to spare them the hurt feelings. We have this conversation (over and over, lol) around so-called negative reviews, and now we’re having it with fellow bloggers. If some believe that we should have remained in BBAW for Amy’s sake, I would suggest that such a thing is not a true show of respect for what the BBAW means as an award, and therefore, it’s not a true show of respect for what Amy and others are trying to do with the award. Now I’m sure many will disagree with me, but that’s the beauty of being able to talk about this openly; we can each make up our own mind and have the opportunity to understand someone else’s decision, as well.
In any case, I echo what Janine and Jane said about you not having anything to apologize for.
Sep 04, 2009 @ 04:55:06
Thanks! :)
I <3 this blog. Everyone is so kind and polite. x
Is My Blog One of Best Romance Blogs in Romanceland? «
Sep 08, 2009 @ 13:39:14
[...] one thing, we know Dear Author and Smart Bitches, Trashy Books withdrew their nominations (thanks for making sure we all knew [...]