SJ Awards '11 Discussion

[darkenergy]

That would be a lot better. I was kind of wondering if greyscale deserved its own category ;p (Obviously, I'm kidding about this one). Again, though, it seems like that means the main deciding factor will be art. I guess if you judges will be figuring it out, it should be okay.

For Best Colouring and Best B&W Comic, the art is the only thing we look at. That's the point of the category. For judging based on the writing, there are many other categories.

The genre ones, right? That makes sense.

I'm trying to think of aspects unique to comicking--and not covered by writing or regular visual art--that could be categories. They're all very technical things, unfortunately.

[eishiya]

The genres ones, Best Characters, Best Fancomic. In all of those, art does matter, but it is a minor concern compared to writing (think of it as a tiebreaker, almost).
But of course, we can't control how the people pick what they vote for.

Don't be afraid to bring up suggestions even if you don't think they're great! Even if we don't use them as they are, we might think of something related that would work. Just make it clear that you don't think they're suitable as-is.

Also, the art categories are fairly comic-unique - panelling, etc are taken into account too, it's not just about how pretty the art is.

[blankd]

You know what? You're all right, Lady Gaga is too popular, so she shouldn't be allowed to win any Grammy's for the next few years. David Fincher is too good so nominating him for things wouldn't be fair to anyone else. Tom Hanks should give back his Oscar for Forrest Gump because he shouldn't have been able to win two years in a row.

There is no logic to limiting nominations because of excessive quality for any reason other than the one Tezzle gave. Everyone else is just being sensitive about it, and without need. If that's how the contest is], then that's how it is and there's no further explanation needed. I accepted that and was happy to move on, why aren't you? Coming up with a bunch of other quite frankly weak excuses about it is unnecessary. Just own the fact that it's a showcase for the community and stop trying to beat up on me because I said something about it.

I don't give a rat's ass about winning more awards, my complaint, as you call it, is on principal.

And I'm starting to remember why I stopped posting here.

I'm glad a webomic is able to compare to music albums and an actor working on different movies. Let's completely disregard that each of their works are utterly different and finished pieces for their respective (annual) awards, webomics (most commonly) are not. Your "ongoing TV series" analogy was better, stick to that.

I have also never denied that it was a showcase, and I am unsure why you are trying to make it a contest (or refer to SJA as a contest). [Please learn the difference between "Award" and "Contest"].

There is no logic to limiting nominations because of excessive quality for any reason other than the one Tezzle gave.

As someone who professes excessive quality being limited, it should be noted that none of last year's winners won "all categories" so they can still qualify for recognition in other areas this year.

[Gibson Twist]

I have also never denied that it was a showcase, and I am unsure why you are trying to make it a contest (or refer to SJA as a contest). [Please learn the difference between "Award" and "Contest"].

You don't think the term "Best" implies a contest? The question isn't whether they can be nominated for other things, the question is whether they should be able to be nominated for anything for which they excel. And the question has been answered a while back. The point is moot, let's drop it.

I do agree that most of the categories are based on or mostly based on writing, or are ideally so, which is great, but it might be worth considering categories for next year that highlight less obvious aspects. We have the Best Color and Best B&W, so why not have things like Best Finishes or Inks, Best Page Design (for actual comic page layouts, different than Site Design,) Best Lettering and things like that.

Also, maybe something in the nature of Best Newcomer or Best New Comic specifically for titles that have begun and maintained throughout the last year. That would be a very interesting category since, with the 30-page rule, it would really showcase creators who put a bit more dedication on their comics and also emphasize comics that might not be so well known.

[eishiya]

Twist: Categories like that were considered this year, but we decided against them because they're too specific. We want to keep the number of categories small in order to encourage people to read all the entries instead of just voting for comics they already know.
Best New Comic could be an option, but I don't feel it's necessary, given how new comic-friendly the awards are to begin with. We'll see what kind of winners we get this year (one year isn't enough to make a call, but two might be). If popular comics win everything (and I won't be surprised if they do), then perhaps a newcomer category might work.
But what would count? We considered an Underdog category this year, but dropped it because we didn't know how to determine whether a comic is an underdog. Would it be based on when it started? How many fans it has? Whether the artist already had a following before the comic started? If you've got suggestions for making such a category work, I'd love it if you shared.

I have, however, already suggested doing special mentions for comics that stand out in ways that are not covered by the categories. So if we see a comic with outstanding lettering, it might still be recognized for that. We haven't decided whether we'll do that.

[blankd]

You don't think the term "Best" implies a contest? The question isn't whether they can be nominated for other things, the question is whether they should be able to be nominated for anything for which they excel. And the question has been answered a while back. The point is moot, let's drop it.

Excellence ought not be limited to just one or two categories should it? If one is a good artist they can become a good writer and be recognized for it and vice versa. What rule says that a webcomic can only have a specific strength?

Regardless, and rather than messing with implications, I will simply refer to what SJA stands for, SmackJeeves Awards. Not SmackJeeves Webcomic Contest. (Track Meet vs recognition of athletic merits in a gym class)

Edit: Addressed by Eishiya

Spoiler! :

Also, maybe something in the nature of Best Newcomer or Best New Comic specifically for titles that have begun and maintained throughout the last year. That would be a very interesting category since, with the 30-page rule, it would really showcase creators who put a bit more dedication on their comics and also emphasize comics that might not be so well known.

The issue with "Best Newcomer/New Comic" is that it has a fuzzy loophole which allows for the theoretical winner to be eligible immediately for the "main" specific categories despite winning an "overall" award. It seems redundant to have "Best Newcomer" when they could easily qualify for the other "actual" categories already in existence, chances are the reason that they even are qualifying for "Best Newcomer" is because they excel in one of the other categories.

The 30-page minimum is also already a decent measure of dedication to their webcomic, having a specific category set up to measure that doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose.

[darkenergy]

The genres ones, Best Characters, Best Fancomic. In all of those, art does matter, but it is a minor concern compared to writing (think of it as a tiebreaker, almost).
But of course, we can't control how the people pick what they vote for.

Also, the art categories are fairly comic-unique - panelling, etc are taken into account too, it's not just about how pretty the art is.

Word. Again, listing selection criteria would probably be a good thing.

You don't think the term "Best" implies a contest?

What's wrong with a little friendly competition? I like having some kind of initiative to improve. There's no obligation for people to be competitive about it, anyway.

chances are the reason that they even are qualifying for "Best Newcomer" is because they excel in one of the other categories.

<- That. Although I totally have some category suggestions I will think through and then post here.

[Gibson Twist]

Underdog category would be interesting. I'm going to assume you mean the sense of Least Likely To Be Popular and not in the sense of Least Qualitative, though the latter would be amusing.

In my head, an underdog would be anything that didn't have elements of the classically popular, so if you could figure out what those elements were on Smack Jeeves, you could apply the opposite. I would say Boy Love, Manga and Sprite comics would be, if not all popular, then at least the most common genre elements...not just in number of comic titles but in interest of readers. Fancomics too have a built-in audience potential based solely on the popularity of the franchise, which makes them less underdoggish.

There are a lot of oddities to the SJ community too that don't really apply to webcomics in general. Normally strips are the more popular format in webcomics, but SJ seems to favour story comics, so I'm not sure what to say about that. Colour comics have it over black and white in terms of popularity, but that also doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't know if that has anything to do with the subject, but there it is.

Like you suggested too, whether the creator has a big following would be good to consider, though hard to police...I'm thinking of folks with big dA or other off-site group followings. Still, it should bear consideration. Then, too, you can eliminate any comics that are already popular, be it among SJ members or off-site.

Of course, the term "underdog" is subjective, so there couldn't be any hard and fast rules, just the informed discretion of the judges. But then, everything else is too, more or less, so it doesn't matter.

So I would say the variables of a "Best Underdog" SJ comic would be anything that was non-BL, original concept, Western/Euro style art or photo comics made by unknown or emerging (maybe the word is novice?) creators.

It might be easier in terms of definition, to go with a category more like Most Underrated or something, though the back of my head seems to recall a similar category last year.

Or you could just do one for the best comic about Underdog. Oo wa-oo wa-oo wa-oo

Those are my thoughts. Don't know if they help or if they're anything that hasn't been considered already.

[robybang]

So I would say the variables of a "Best Underdog" SJ comic would be anything that was non-BL, original concept, Western/Euro style art or photo comics made by unknown or emerging (maybe the word is novice?) creators.

If that's the case, why not make Best Photo Comic and Best Western Art Categories? It seems like this is what it would amount to in the end, so why not be accurate? As for "Underdog Comic", we could try comics with a low fan/comic ratio, but if it's a daily comic or something that updates often, the fanbase would easily be outnumbered (e.g. Lunar HIll has 100+ fans but over 3000 comics and would be considered an "Underdog"). Another way would be to see how long the comic has been on Smackjeeves and compare it to how many fans it has, but I'm sure it could be gamed too. People returning to an old comic that was popular but they ditched previously would be considered "Underdog".

Or you could just do one for the best comic about Underdog. Oo wa-oo wa-oo wa-oo

But here's an idea I can get behind.

[Gibson Twist]

So I would say the variables of a "Best Underdog" SJ comic would be anything that was non-BL, original concept, Western/Euro style art or photo comics made by unknown or emerging (maybe the word is novice?) creators.

If that's the case, why not make Best Photo Comic and Best Western Art Categories? It seems like this is what it would amount to in the end, so why not be accurate? As for "Underdog Comic", we could try comics with a low fan/comic ratio, but if it's a daily comic or something that updates often, the fanbase would easily be outnumbered (e.g. Lunar HIll has 100+ fans but over 3000 comics and would be considered an "Underdog"). Another way would be to see how long the comic has been on Smackjeeves and compare it to how many fans it has, but I'm sure it could be gamed too. People returning to an old comic that was popular but they ditched previously would be considered "Underdog".

I think they tried Best Photo Comic last year and it got one nomination. I assume that's why they scrapped it this year. I wouldn't have a problem with a Best Western Art category, but then manga fans would rightly want a Best Manga category. I don't know, those just seemed like the less popular varieties. I'd stay away from fan count as an indicator, if only because there are a few of the most popular comics that have low fan counts but high off-site readership. It's hard to figure in the off-site readership, but it would be smart to consider it, somehow. I agree about duration/fan count, though.

[blankd]

My own thoughts in response to Twist's:

Spoiler! :

So I would say the variables of a "Best Underdog" SJ comic would be anything that was non-BL, original concept, Western/Euro style art or photo comics made by unknown or emerging (maybe the word is novice?) creators.

1. Non-BL, considering that none of the "serious" winners of last year were BL this is a superfluous restriction. BL also has a "technical definition" problem and whilst I'm sure it was listed as a way to avoid the fanservice, shouldn't anything else that could be deemed shallow catering serve as disqualifies (ie: eroticism in general) as well?

2. Original Concept - too subjective, originality depends entirely on the knowledge of the reader and the execution of the author. One also need not be wholly original to be a worthy underdog contender.

3. Western/Euro style is fine to an extent, but why divorce them based on style, especially since both contain a wide variety within themselves (and Realism is technically neither)? It also opens up a new can of worms when "hybrid" styles come into question. I'd suggest a "Distinctive Style" category instead, as it would eliminate the "generic look" that way, but even that it would be difficult to manage and gauge. Style debates in general cause more headaches.

A Best Underdog category would be great, but there is a year-round way to "get around it" which is the Comic Spotlight, so forgive me if I think that Best Underdog/Underrated doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose. *And of course figuring out the qualifiers for what is an Underdog/Underrated Comic is an annoying beast to tackle and difficult to maintain given the nomination period and the date of the result, in the months between it is entirely possible for a comic to go from Underdog/Underrated status to "doing just fine."

[eishiya]

The flaws Twist listed with the Best Underdog category is why we didn't do it this year. Best Underrated was, as he said, pretty much the same thing. We could not come up with an adequate definition for "underrated" so we scrapped it.

We'd rather avoid having specific underdog categories like Best Western Style because they go around the purpose of the awards - to showcase quality comics, regardless of style and content. The current categories arguably do this to an extent, but they are still very broad and exist to allow lots of winners and to showcase works based on these very general strengths. An underdog can still make it as a finalist in the other categories based on quality. Even if it doesn't win, it will still get traffic. But hey, depending on the other entries, it's entirely possible for it to win even with the popular vote.

Derpedit: Looks like blankd beat me to it while I was distracted in the middle of typing.

[Afrohawkman]

I don't think we needed an adequate definition; just because we all didn't agree on what "underrated" meant doesn't mean we couldn't have our own definitions and once it came up in the nomination we could put our heads together and come up with 5 nominations. All we needed on the page was something that said, "Best Underrated Comic (comics you feel that deserve more popularity or credit than they currently receive)". Yes, it is a broad definition, but we shouldn't be trying to make everything too 'general'. Award shows are about specific categories; not everyone's going to fit in every category for a reason.

The Comic Spotlight used to be a good way to get some publicity, but nowadays the layout of it just isn't good enough to give people the fans they deserve. I looked at the comics on the current Comic Spotlight and their fan count is pretty low. Think about it: you have to scroll down and click on that tab if you're actually looking for something good. It's a lot more hassle than just being shown the comic right when you get on. They're not being given the best advertisement they deserve; the "Underdog Award" would be a perfect way to give them that.

[darkenergy]

I don't think we needed an adequate definition; just because we all didn't agree on what "underrated" meant doesn't mean we couldn't have our own definitions and once it came up in the nomination we could put our heads together and come up with 5 nominations. All we needed on the page was something that said, "Best Underrated Comic (comics you feel that deserve more popularity or credit than they currently receive)". Yes, it is a broad definition, but we shouldn't be trying to make everything too 'general'. Award shows are about specific categories; not everyone's going to fit in every category for a reason.

The Comic Spotlight used to be a good way to get some publicity, but nowadays the layout of it just isn't good enough to give people the fans they deserve. I looked at the comics on the current Comic Spotlight and their fan count is pretty low. Think about it: you have to scroll down and click on that tab if you're actually looking for something good. It's a lot more hassle than just being shown the comic right when you get on. They're not being given the best advertisement they deserve; the "Underdog Award" would be a perfect way to give them that.

I don't know, I could see someone sharing an 'underrated' comic with "only" 200 fans (the really popular stuff here has over 1000, it seems). If that comic happens to have got them all in a week, and the nominator didn't check....

The Comic Spotlight is the first thing that opens for me when I switch to this site (for some reason, autologin doesn't work for me). Once I log in, it stays on whatever tab I last opened....

[Afrohawkman]

I don't think we needed an adequate definition; just because we all didn't agree on what "underrated" meant doesn't mean we couldn't have our own definitions and once it came up in the nomination we could put our heads together and come up with 5 nominations. All we needed on the page was something that said, "Best Underrated Comic (comics you feel that deserve more popularity or credit than they currently receive)". Yes, it is a broad definition, but we shouldn't be trying to make everything too 'general'. Award shows are about specific categories; not everyone's going to fit in every category for a reason.

The Comic Spotlight used to be a good way to get some publicity, but nowadays the layout of it just isn't good enough to give people the fans they deserve. I looked at the comics on the current Comic Spotlight and their fan count is pretty low. Think about it: you have to scroll down and click on that tab if you're actually looking for something good. It's a lot more hassle than just being shown the comic right when you get on. They're not being given the best advertisement they deserve; the "Underdog Award" would be a perfect way to give them that.

I don't know, I could see someone sharing an 'underrated' comic with "only" 200 fans (the really popular stuff here has over 1000, it seems). If that comic happens to have got them all in a week, and the nominator didn't check....

Depending on the comic, 200 can be considered underrated.