Seperis (seperis) wrote,
Seperis
seperis

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?
Tags: meta: fandom
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 153 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →