It wasn’t the WSFS that excluded us. If anything, you’ve been quite helpful. I think that requiring a rules change like this to pass at two meetings is excellent. It prevents a change from being railroaded through without the other side having a chance to prepare and present their case.

Yes, a general they. Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.

Cheryl – I’ve often filled the role of sacrificial lamb. Seems we often need a bloody alter before change occurs. And to clarify – I wasn’t suggesting that there could ever be a hard definition. I know there can’t be. But I don’t think that the definitions in quasi-use now were adopted with everything that is now out there in mind. If Ansible can so easly cross between two categories (and win), it indicates a problem. If nothing that is not news-oriented has won in semi-prozine for ages, it indicates that somewhere, somehow, folks don’t think that “non-pro fiction pubs” belong in the category.

Kevin, I think Neil was referring to a general ‘they’.

Looks like another post coming

…that they officially invite semiprozine people into the discussion of definition.

Who is “they”?

Subscription-only webzines represent a very small percentage of the market. In terms of readership, they appear to have lower numbers than many of the free webzines. That’s not exactly surprising though. The story (readership-wise) changes considerably when you include podcast magazines.

As for “that won’t work”, some things won’t, including any attempt to create watertight definitions of categories. But I tend to think of “work” as “does that have any chance of getting past a Business Meeting”, and practicality often has nothing to do with that.

quote away. I’m sure that Cheryl has already informed you that I am a ‘radical’ – which is mewsing speak for (and in my own head means) – blue-sky with an open mind. I pounce on statements like – “that will never work” (and more often than not find a way to MAKE it work).

I often get sick and tired of folks who feel they face a crises and who are unwilling to get creative, throw ideas out (for good or for bad).

The practice is supposed to accomplish two things – help you identify the really intractable part of the problem and identify truly non-workable solutions.

But reactions to this exercise (from people who are supposed to be creative and open-minded) are the truly radical element. People so quickly forget that ‘it’s just an idea’. If all you do is stare at the problem, you’ll never find a solution.

I’m sensitive to tradition (duh – the blog is all about that) and respect personal concerns, but the hard facts on the ground are that until and unless the Hugos PROACTIVELY engage with the now, they’ll quickly become irrelevent.

~~~
It only makes sense to me to have the folks who are doing the pub involved – as I said (and I don’t think I’m wrong in the least) ‘what’ a publication sees itself as is at least 50% self-definition. Parenthetically – my paintball website is forced to ‘compete’ with forums and magazines because most folks don’t recognize the difference because they are all ‘websites’ – when clearly we fill a different niche.

~~~
I wasn’t talking about web stats: some magazines/newssites have a subscription process – where you only get certain content by signing up – either signing up or signing up and paying.

Most of the people involved in online publications that I have spoken to seem rather open about their readership numbers. That said, I don’t think you can reliably map visitor website statistics to subscription numbers for a print magazine. Happy to explain sometime if you’d like.

I think you might be the first person (that I’ve come across) to suggest that they officially invite semiprozine people into the discussion of definition. (Yes, I know we can all participate already. It just sends a different message.)

I think you’ve just given me another idea for the blog. Mind if I quote you on some of your alternative models?

Thanks!