February 27th, 2007

children of dune - leto 1

it is already a very, very long day

A.

Still hotel-shopping. You'd think me and svmadelyn could narrow it down? And we did! Then one offered a full breakfast and both of us kind of stuttered and went "ummm". Cause. Breakfast.

We are pathetically easy like that.

B.

Signups for sgabigbang continue here. Forty thousand words, choice of three-ish pairings, and a whole lot of prompts! And yes, apparently I'm comodding it. Who knew?

Anyway, go check it out! Sign up! It's fun! It's like a fannish nanowrimo! Except kind of a sunowrimo, since it's set spring/summer.

C.

There was a c, but I forgot what it was. *waves it off*
children of dune - leto 1

okay, we are in sga, therefore, we know of the scientific method

Thought. Random thought. Actually fairly undoable thought.

In another lj, there's a fascinating meta about correlation between comment number and how good a story is. I really wont' rehash that here, because it will only make me cite the stories I hate most that had high comment counts and send me into blind rages. It's a problem. I deal with it.

So I'm trying to figure out how would a true double blind work in fandom as it stands. The only way I can see that would level all playing fields--and even then, I'm talking a severe difference in level, but close enough--would be a double blind. Anonymous authors, screened comments--and a single writing prompt. Because while I buy that quality of fic has something to do with quantity of feedback--I think it's not as much as we--and I mean, me, the writer--always hopes it will be.

Okay, just thinking. A double blind, if you wanted to test the hypothesis -- a fic with a lot of feedback is (usually) better or at least far more publicly accessible than one that has a lower one. What would be the constants?