Re: GWA awards program

**J* L* <h*@yahoo.com>**

Barbara: I was guessing that printouts of blog posts were what was being asked for. We've had problems in the past with URLs not working well during the judging process -- maybe the ISP was having problems, or the URL was wrong (or got changed) or whatever.

As to the issue of them being best experienced online, if you enter for writing, that's all that's considered -- just as if you entered for magazine writing or newspaper writing. Sure, you may have gotten some gorgeous full-color photos with your magazine article but those DO NOT count. (Same if the editor showed a photo of the wrong plant!) Only writing counts for a writing award. And only photos for a photography award. 

No, comments are not considered. A subcommittee went round and round on this one before deciding that. There are some nice arguments for giving 10 or 15 points for comments. But really, the writer doesn't have much control over whether people do or don't and what they say. I would guess that if we change the blog/personal website category (or categories) next year -- and that seems likely -- the issue might be revisited. And I'll have to say that if I had expanded to an important degree on a topic in a post's comment section, I might circle that and include it in my entry. (But that's not an "official" answer -- just my feeling.)

Susan: Those are good points and I think they'll help us do a better job on the electronic categories next year.  This is a personal observation -- not from me as chair of the committee, but me as an observer over the years -- that where most "overall" entries fall is in the design category. A website may look great to you or me, but is its design in the top 95% professionally?  (That's what it needs to win.) You have to be not just good in writing, photography, and design, but great in all 3 categories. It isn't easy. (And possibly this means we need to do some rethinking of the whole idea. However, we don't want to lower our standards -- we're professionals and that's how we're judged.)

CL: I agree on the timing of possible talks. Probably those who are interested in this -- and think they will actually enter it -- may need to do a little lobbying for it with GWA, because they tend not to want to add any more small categories that don't draw very many entries. (We get a small number of radio and TV entries, for instance, so I have doubts that speaking -- since someone would have to record the talk -- would be more popular as a category. But it isn't my decision.)

Websites are judged as a whole. However, if you enter website writing or website photography, those have limits as to what's considered, just as if you enter print writing or photography.

The idea of increasing the electronic entry categories this year was to push GWA into the digital age (a bit late but getting there). We talked with a number of bloggers and those with websites about their ideas and had a subcommittee talk about what had been suggested. What we came up with obviously wasn't perfect but your concrete suggestions will help improve it greatly. Many thanks.

Judy Lowe
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/gardening
http://twitter.com/JudyDigginit

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
&quot;Gardenwriters on Gardening&quot; &lt;gwl-g@lists.ibiblio.org&gt;

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters