This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Garden Globe Awards question

Title: [GWL] Re: Garden Globe Awards question
I've been looking at the comments from listmembers on the GWA awards over the last couple of days and, as one of last year's judges and this year's entrants, thought I'd make a few points.

Some of these points can be made simply by reposting what I posted soon after returning from last year's judging:

Last weekend I joined a team of judges to determine the Garden Globe Awards. I know there has been some comment about the awards on this list in the past so I thought an overview of the proceedings might be interesting.

First, the calibre of people judging was very impressive - including a Pulitzer Prize winner and many previous award winners. The full list of judges and their bios will appear in the next Quill & Trowel along with most of the awards. We gathered in a hotel and spent all day Saturday and much of Sunday examining the entries, with different teams of judges concentrating on awards relating to their specific field of expertise to begin with, then all coming together as one group to determine the highest awards.

We all recognised, I think, as have people on this list, that the judging system is flawed but we worked very hard within the system, and sometimes with determined champions of different works pitted against one another, to ensure we arrived at the most just result. The system is laid down by the GWAA Board of Directors and some of the judges present will be submitting ideas for its improvement.

Particularly striking impressions of the weekend included:
1. The large number of good, competent, workmanlike entries. Fortunately there were also some genuinely outstanding ones.
2. The amount of good work, of which we were aware, that was not submitted.
3. The fact that the system needs overhauling and simplifying.

But I have to say that although the system would benefit from improvement the winners, when they are announced, and those who entered but did not win, can be confident that we were all (with Bob LeGasse and his team managing a very complex process and doing the statistical work) genuinely committed to ensuring that the best work rose to the top and gained the appropriate awards.

It would be easier for judges, and encourage more people to enter, if the system was improved. Anyone with thoughts about how this can be done should send their comments to the GWAA board.

I, and some other judges, sent detailed reports on how the system could be improved. I gather that these have been discussed but I have received no comment or feedback on my suggestions and am not aware that any changes have been made.

One important point is the extreme time pressure. Not only must whole books be assessed in a matter of minutes but, when requested, the comment form must be completed. This is partly a 'check the box' form and there is also space for a few words; obviously there is no time for the detailed critique that many entrants would appreciate. The form could be improved enormously and it is, in fact, quite a dfficult form to fill in helpfully. The comment "your magazine has no relevance to gardening." is clearly unhelpful - not to say wrong - and I suspect Tom was as cross as I was with the uninformed comment on one of my books. Frankly, unless the form can be improved significantly and proper time allowed for its completion, I think it should be abandonned.

So, judges, entrants and no-longer-entrants... write to the Board with your comments, copy them to your regional chair, and ask for a reply.

Graham Rice

http://www.scentedsweetpeas.com
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index