Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Oxbridge
offlineMember
Here's a simple points system to decide WotM. Whaddya think?
For each FP - 3 points
For each Nib - 1 point
For most read article - 6 points (if an FP) or 3 points (if a Nib)
For second most read article - 4 points(if an FP)or 2(if a Nib)
For third most read 2 (if an FP) or 1 (if a Nib)
Archive stories don't count.
I'll leave it to others to add the hilarious other possibilities in...
The All New Jeni B
offlineMember
I'm happy to go with Carter's suggestion, and should I ever be lucky enough to win under those rules, promise to attend the glittering awards ceremony in full costume to accept my mug.
(Backflips across the stage and a quick purr can be negotiated.)
The Secret Cabal
offlineMember
IF THE GRAVATAR IS LIKED MOST,
A MUG IN THE POST.
IF THE GRAVATAR IS POOR,
WE WILL SHOW YOU THE ERROR OF YOUR WAYS.
Martin Shuttlecock
offlineMember
I quite like the idea of the 'Wooden Spoon' and the 'Most Mistaken For Awards'
But then, I would, wouldn't I?
Oxy’s suggestion is a good start, but it needs to be more complicated. The formula for working out who has won should include a square root in there somewhere, everybody likes square roots. Or maybe even a cube root if we want to be really adventurous.
Ideally the formula should be so complex that it would take hours and hours of painstaking work to decide who the winner is. A high probability of error would be a bonus too, so a few months down the line we can discover that FirstGroup didn’t really win the October WoM, it was just a mistake in the calculations.
I don't know, was Jimmy Savile a maths expert? Even if he was he's not much use to us, what with him being dead and everything.
wallster
offlineMember
I think, (ergo sum), that the WoM should be awarded on the basis of the number of subs published, multiplied by the number of stars deducted by the one star fairy, subtract the number of page views on any pre-2010 submissions, divided by the number of Jimmy Savile related one liners, then awarded to Waylandsmithy anyway because that's the right thing to do.
Then we can all go off to the pub.
I just got deja vu all over again.
Martin Shuttlecock
offlineMember
I'd be up for going down the pub.
Or horizontal.
One or the other...
I think Gerontius has hit on a really good idea there. The only problem is that “best” is open to interpretation so we need an independent way of deciding which sub in the month was the best.
I think it’s safe to assume that if a sub is one of the best that month then it will have been picked up as either an FP, NiB or LA. So it will have been on the main site for all visitors to see and read. The best subs will get more attention, so maybe we could give it to the one that has the most “likes” on FB, or the most re-tweets.
Or, if it’s possible to measure, maybe the most unique hits a story gets? That seems like the fairest way of deciding which sub was the best, and therefore who wins WoM.
charlies_hat
offlineMember
Don't be silly VCG, that would never work...
Gerontius
offlineMember
why do we need plebs on FB or Twitter to decide on who has submitted the best work
surely it should be for NB contributors to decide
you don't get plumbers or IT managers choosing the Booker Prize
why can't we just vote amongst ourselves
there are usually 4 or 5 genuine contenders in any given month
vote for your personal favourite on the last day of the month
re multiple user-names and spam....from now on contributors need to apply via Nice Admin Lady
Sanctioned not sectioned
Midfield Diamond
offlineMember
Why does it have to be independent? Or democratic? Or fair?
Best way in my view is the editorial team decide who has been the best writer in any particular month, along with all the bias, favouritism, corruption, etc that could entail. It's a mug, awarded for submitting a few words on a spoof news website, not a bloody Oscar.
Although I'll cry like a baby during my acceptance speech in the unlikely event that I ever get one.
You must log in to post.
