Now here's something it had never occurred to me to wonder about. Back here, as I was doing my best "Aw, shucks" about this blog's recent 2006 CBA nominations, commenter "anonymous" asked:
I noticed that you've already been nominated for a "Best Blog Post." Does that mean you can't be nominated for another one? How does that work?
OK, that's a new one on me. I'm guessing there's no technical reason why that can't be done, but I'm not aware that it's ever happened in the past. Make sure you understand what the category of "Best Blog Post" represents.
It's not just what you think is the most entertaining post from this blog -- it represents what you think is the best single blog post from the entire Canadian blogosphere, across the entire political spectrum on any topic whatsoever. So getting more than one nomination in that category would be, shall we say, highly unusual and somewhat unrealistic.
However, since I'm guessing that the CBA's Robert McClelland pops by here on occasion, perhaps he'd like to weigh in on this. We'll let him have the last word.
P.S. Looking at the categories, I'm fairly confident I'm not going to see myself nominated under "Best Humour Blog" unless some of my readers have seriously warped senses of humour.
Wait ... let me rephrase that ...
7 comments:
Best Blog Post and Best Blog Post Series are handled on a first nomination basis. Which means that the first nomination for these categories is the one that sticks while all subsequent ones for the same blog are ignored. While I could allow more than one nomination per blog, it would only serve to split that blog's vote in the category. The only exception I make is if the actual blogger wants to substitute a different post or post series.
I'm fairly confident I'm not going to see myself nominated under "Best Humour Blog" unless some of my readers have seriously warped senses of humour.
Actually there have been nominations sent in for that category. Along with best religious blog, best cultural blog and best entertainment blog. I think most people either don't understand the category descriptions or didn't bother reading them. You were also nominated for categories that don't even exist; like best political commentator blog and best opinion blog.
"Best opinion blog," as if there are blogs which are free of opinions.
RM writes:
"Best Blog Post and Best Blog Post Series are handled on a first nomination basis. Which means that the first nomination for these categories is the one that sticks while all subsequent ones for the same blog are ignored."
Actually, that works just fine for me since, if I personally had to pick a post, that's the one I would have chosen. You can never go wrong slapping around Steve Janke.
Best Blog Post and Best Blog Post Series are handled on a first nomination basis. Which means that the first nomination for these categories is the one that sticks while all subsequent ones for the same blog are ignored.
I don't agree with that criteria. What if someone nominates some lame post of mine first and then someone else nominates one that I and others might think really deserves to be nominated?
catnip writes:
"What if someone nominates some lame post of mine first and then someone else nominates one that I and others might think really deserves to be nominated?"
I think Robert already addressed that. Once you see that someone has nominated a post of yours, and you would prefer another one, he gives you (the actual blogger) the right to make the substitution.
I don't see a problem here.
Well, shit, I see from Robert's comment above that my nomination of CC for Best Religious Blog is not going to be taken seriously, despite the fact that CC devotes a considerable amount of space here to religion.
Drat. That would've been fun.
CC,
I think that this post on whether or not two posts by the same blogger could be nominated should have itself been nominated for best blog post. It's very well written, and hits the nail right on the head!
Post a Comment