Given the evolution at the Citadel, my voting practice has changed a little as well so I'm updating this but nothing major has changed from when I just wrote this.
I am not really that active a voter really but I am quite interested in how different people vote so I thought I will share my own system of voting here for those who felt this topic is interesting. Actually, in essence, my voting system is really quite similar to that of Forganthus. The differences are:
1. The score of 3 is my benchmark score for submissions that do not have obvious problems with respect to spelling and grammar, content and logic (but in reality, I’ve hardly ever given a submission just a 3, I somehow always managed to find something that I like enough about the sub to rise it up to 3.5)
2. I mainly judge a sub by two parts: content and write-up. (I am not a gamer, I just visit this site as someone whose hobby is writing fantasy related things) Regarding content, I only grade its originality and underlying logic, with more weights given to logic (after all, I think there’s really nothing new under the sun, a lot of original ideas are just new spins on existing ideas). And write-up obviously includes anything basic and objective from spelling and grammar to more complex and subjective domains such as expression, tone and atmosphere etc.
3.(NEW!) With new developments at the Citadel such as the Oekaki Challenge and the Weaver Guild Quests etc. that are various forms of Writing Challenges, my votes now adjust for the inherent difficulty of these writing challenges. So a sub that's normally just plain 3 for me is now 3.5 if it falls under one of these challenge categories. I will explicitly mention such deviation from my normal grading scheme in my comment as well.
4. My 5’s are what I think perfect. Of course, that doesn’t mean the submission has to be perfect with respect to both content and write-up. I think a submission that scores 4-4.5 on one aspect and 5 on the other aspect will already get a 5 from me.
5. I also have a habit of abstaining from voting on particular submissions. These are either: 1) those that I don’t have anything to say about it for whatever reasons, mainly subs that are not really my type- I'm an avid fan of fantasy whereas sci-fi is really not my thing; 2) those below my benchmark score for which I usually leave a comment on suggestions on areas to improve and might revisit if revised; 3) those that I read and found I didn’t agree with the existing score but didn’t want to downvote without providing some constructive feedback on how it could be improved (and usually for these I couldn’t).
6. My Hall of Honour isn’t really reserved for submissions with high scores. It could be something voted low for the write-up but has an underlying idea that’s quite interesting. But of course, it could also well be an old but quality submission that has already been acknowledged by existing votes but maybe hasn’t received enough votes from my point of view or I felt was inspirational and deserved to be looked at again.Go to Comment