Showing posts with label Ratings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ratings. Show all posts

Monday, October 24, 2016

Now We Are Ten, edited by Ian Whates

Find this book
(10th Anniversary Anthology) A collection of stories exploring the number 10. (77,129 words; Time: 4h:17m)

Rating: ★★★☆☆, Average

Saturday, October 15, 2016

October 2016 Ratings

5 & 4 Stories: 5;  Estimated Time: 1h:45m (32K words)
Recommended By Stories: -> Due 11/2/16
Total Stories: 51;  Estimated Time: 21h:58m (395K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

When Slates Collide

A further analysis of the Hugo Nomination data from 2016 suggests that a great number of Rabid Puppies refused to vote to nominate the so-called "hostages." In particular, only 61 out of 400 voted to nominate File 770 for Best Fanzine. This suggests the hostage strategy doesn't work well for the slates.


Last week, we published an analysis of Slate Voting over the past three years which used the EPH data to get more accurate estimates of how many Sad/Rabid Puppies had participated in the Hugo Nominations in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Because that tool showed very few Sad Puppies used their recommendation list as a slate in 2016, it's possible to use the same tool to divide the Rabid Puppies into two different slates: one "hard" slate, which voted the way people were instructed to, and one "soft" slate, which omitted the "hostages."

The hostage strategy appears to have been to nominate some mainstream works/people in hopes that either a) those people would withdraw, allowing the slates to claim they had the power to force people they don't like off the ballot or b) the fans would vote those people under No Award in the final ballot, allowing the slates to claim that the fans are the ones who vote mindlessly or c) one or more of the works would win, allowing the slates to claim an actual victory. You can read the previous article to see how well that turned out. 

How Slates Divide

A key assumption in that strategy was that the legions of people who vote for slates really do vote mindlessly. But the graph below shows that this is not the case.

Click Graph to Enlarge

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Galactic Games, edited by Bryan Thomas Schmidt

Find this book
(SF Sports) Twenty stories of sport and contest in various settings--fron Earth to space, with competitors ranging from human to alien. (81,800 words; Time: 4h:32m)

Rating: ★★★☆☆, Average

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Slate Voting Analysis Using EPH Data: 2014-2016

Using the EPH (E Pluribus Hugo) data provided to the WSFS Business meeting in Kansas City, it's possible to make much more accurate estimates of the number of slate voters in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

We find that their numbers roughly doubled each year, starting from about 100 in 2014 and climbing to about 400 in 2016.

We also find that their discipline across categories improved considerably.

Based on the drop in their voting rate on the final ballot, we cautiously estimate their numbers may fall back to 200 during the 2017 Hugo nominations.

We find that the impact of slates has been almost entirely limited to keeping worthy works off the final ballot.
  • Only one Hugo winner (Best Professional Artist, 2016) owed its place on the ballot to slate nominations. No other candidate who chose to remain on the ballot despite an unwanted slate nomination actually needed the slate nominations to get there.
  • Only two candidates (Black Gate in 2016 and "Goodnight Stars" in 2015) who declined the nomination in response to being slated would have made it to the final ballot without the slates.
This means the slates are not, for the most part, succeeding in getting awards for their own favorites, nor are they successful at frightening legitimate nominees into withdrawing, nor are they successful at inciting ordinary fans to vote against worthy nominees. The only thing they've succeeded at is reducing the number of quality candidates that fans can choose from on the final ballot.

Update (10/2/2016) We also find that as many as 85% of the Rabid Puppy slaters defied their organizers and refused to nominate some of the "hostages." See When Slates Collide for details.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

September 2016 Ratings

5 & 4 Stories: 14;  Estimated Time: 6h:21m (114K words)
Recommended By Stories: 29;  Estimated Time: 12h:00m (216K words)
Total Stories: 60;  Estimated Time: 24h:06m (434K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

MidAmeriCon II Takeaways

Eric and I attended MidAmeriCon II last week: our second-ever WorldCon. We had a good time, met some interesting people, and learned a few things. I'll discuss things of interest to readers of short fiction and fans of the Hugo Awards first, and I'll leave the personal stuff to the end.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Look for RSR at MidAmeriCon II

We'll be attending MidAmeriCon II in Kansas City, MO next week, and we're looking forward to meeting some of the people we've been chatting with all year! We've printed up some Rocket Stack Rank ribbons for the occasion, and we'll be passing those out to anyone who asks for one.

Greg and Eric
Eric on the left and Greg on the right.
Our tentative schedule is as follows:

Monday, August 15, 2016

August 2016 Ratings

5 & 4 Stories: 9;  Estimated Time: 5h:36m (101K words)
Recommended By Stories: 23;  Estimated Time: 11h:16m (203K words)
Total Stories: 47;  Estimated Time: 21h:34m (388K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Drowned Worlds, edited by Jonathan Strahan

Find this book
(SF Climate Change) This anthology contains fourteen original stories and one reprint set in drowned or inundated futures. (102,700 words; Time: 5h:42m)

Rating: ★★★☆☆, Average

Friday, July 15, 2016

July 2016 Ratings

5 & 4 Stories: 8;  Estimated Time: 7h:23m (133K words)
Recommended By Stories: 14;  Estimated Time: 10h:18m (186K words)
Total Stories: 46;  Estimated Time: 26h:13m (472K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

June 2016 Ratings

5 & 4 Stories: 10;  Estimated Time: 4h:52m (88K words)
Recommended By Stories: 17;  Estimated Time: 8h:15m (149K words)
Total Stories: 61;  Estimated Time: 21h:15m (383K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

May 2016 Ratings

5 & 4 Stories: 10;  Estimated Time: 5h:06m (92K words)
Recommended By Stories: 21;  Estimated Time: 9h:40m (174K words)
Total Stories: 58;  Estimated Time: 22h:01m (396K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Saturday, May 14, 2016


We'll miss our regular monthly update today because we're taking a few weeks' vacation in Europe, celebrating the end of the Hugo Nominations (though not the outcome). We'll be back on schedule within two weeks.

Seville, Spain, appears to be directing people to WorldCon.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Analysis of Slate Voting for the 2016 Hugos

Update: September 22, 2016: I was able to use the additional data supplied at the end of MidAmeriCon II to compute a much more precise estimate, and that's reported in Slate Voting Analysis Using EPH Data: 2014-2016.


I estimate there were about 205 “Rabid Puppies” this year, essentially identical to the estimated 204 Sad+Rabid puppies last year.

The reason they did so well despite a doubling of the number of "organic" votes is that they managed much better slate discipline this year; last year, not everyone voted for all five candidates nor in every category, but this year it seems they did.

Friday, April 15, 2016

April 2016 Ratings

5 & 4 Stories: 11;  Estimated Time: 7h:06m (128K words)
Recommended By Stories: 25;  Estimated Time: 12h:08m (218K words)
Total Stories: 58;  Estimated Time: 27h:37m (497K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Trajectories, edited by Dave Creek

Find this book
(SF) All the writers in this volume had a single assignment--tell us a story in any genre, in any mood, as long as it takes place in space or on an alien planet.--Dave Creek, editor. (64,600 words; Time: 3h:35m)

Rating: ★★☆☆☆, Not Recommended

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Rocket Stack Rank at Six Months

Rocket Stack Rank went live on September 19, 2015, so we're six months old today. We set out to create a web site that would make it easier for fans to find good short science fiction and fantasy (SFF) to read prior to making nominations for the 2016 Hugo Awards.

Toward that end, we did everything we could think of, culminating in our 2016 Hugo Awards recommendation page, which put all the information together in a convenient place, and the evidence shows that a modest number of users are starting to make use of it.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

March 2016 Ratings

5- & 4-Star Stories: 7;  Estimated Time: 2h:31m (45K words)
Recommended By Stories: 19;  Estimated Time: 8h:37m (155K words)
Total Stories: 56;  Estimated Time: 19h:59m (360K words)
Read How to Use RSR on the right sidebar or this link to use this post.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

2015 Ratings

Here are reviews of short fiction from 2015 that came to RSR’s attention late. Two are non-free novellas. Most are recommendations from the Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies. The rest were other original stories from the anthology There Will Be War, Volume X. (We'd like to thank Jerry Pournelle for arranging a free copy for us.)

Because they are coming so late, we're keeping these reviews are separate from the 191 reviews of the most recommended stories in our 2016 Hugo Awards page. Otherwise no one will see them.

We're aware of the controversy associated with the Puppies, but we are trying to be even-handed and treat them like any other significant recommendation list.
Greg Hullender and Eric Wong
March 21, 2016
Update 3/21/16: Made changes to reflect the final Rabid Puppies list.