The fiasco around nominations and voting continuues.  An exhaustive statistical analysis of the nomination data has been undertaken and reported on. 

From the Executive Summary of that report:
"This report contends that the nomination statistics provided cannot be treated as a reliable presentation of the actual nomination votes by members. The report will show that there are known errors in the listed names of nominees, inconsistencies in the vote totals, inaccuracies in the manner points were calculated in elimination rounds and highly atypical patterns of voting. In particular, there is evidence in the categories of Best Novel and Best Series of a very large number of highly similar votes for the main finalists in these categories, that these votes advantaged English-language works over Chinese-language works and that these votes do not resemble organic voting by members. The exact explanation of these votes is unknown."

The full report is up on Google Docs.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSsNSBeLmp6MIuJX3ZEVTlw-Xj2AYygnz71j63aqnMFNvNSPxcFv-vSDgWFM17HFBN4r-Ap-nKGKaso/pub

 

Last edited by Surtac (2/23/2024 5:52 pm)

And I'm wondering now how many other sets of Hugo awards could McCarty and his cronies have interfered in? 

 

Aja Jin wrote:

 I think that long term, there will have to be a separation between the Hugo nom/vote process and the announcement at the world con. 
 

I agree.  I think making it an independent and transparent process will be crucial to its survival. The question then is, who will 'own' and control that process?  
And I don't see any sort of fix starting this year, with Glasgow only six months or so away.



 

Yes I knew about the two successive Worldcon votes to effect rule changes.

As to the other, is there anyone left as part of the WSFS to make it happen who hasn't already been tainted by association?  Any white knights out there in 'organised fandom' (now there's an oxymoron) willing to ride in and accept this particular poisoned chalice?