SLIDE 1
Membership Update Prepared by 2017 Independent Review Committee - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Membership Update Prepared by 2017 Independent Review Committee - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
GCLS AWARDS PROCESS Membership Update Prepared by 2017 Independent Review Committee July 6, 2017 Four Primary IRC Goals Conduct an independent review to ensure the quality, integrity and prestige of the GCLS awards process , a key
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Two Related IRC Questions
➢ What does “independent” mean?
▪ No member of the IRC is currently on the GCLS board or participating in the judging process for books published in 2016, 2017 or 2018 – thus fulfilling the requirement for an independent “external” review as sanctioned by the GCLS Board.
➢ Who is on the IRC? ▪ Jenny Fielder (chair): Retired corporate executive and market researcher for newspaper industry. GCLS member for six years. Attended nine conferences with partner KG MacGregor. ▪ Donna Brown: GCLS member since beginning. Served as Goldie judge for one term. Avid reader and Xena: Warrior Princess fan. Administrative Assistant for sheriff’s department. ▪ Jane Chen: Won Goldie in 2010 writing as Trinity Tam (with wife Nell Stark) for everafter. Has attended three conferences. Marketing VP and Harvard grad. ▪ Leigh Howell: Attended seven GCLS conferences with sister, Lynne Pierce of Lesfic Unbound. Former editor for Blue Feather Books. Lives with husband Steve. ▪ MJ Lowe: GCLS member since 2004. Served on Board of Directors in 2008-2010 and as Awards Administrator for 2012-2014. Librarian by trade and training. ▪ Elaine Lynch: Attended 11 conventions. Served as Goldie judge five times. Been reviewing books since 2005. Married to GCLS Trailblazer Lee Lynch. Retired Quality Control specialist. ▪ Rosa Moran: GCLS member since beginning. Attended all conferences and awards ceremonies. Served as judge for four years. “Techie” by trade and training. ▪ Sharon Owens: Avid reader belonging to GCLS for seven years. Attended five conferences. Been presenter at awards ceremony. Retired library worker and former attorney.
SLIDE 4
IRC Primary Action Steps
➢ Participate as “faux nominator” and “faux judge” for real-time
experience with GCLS awards process.
➢ Evaluate effectiveness of OpenWater online awards management
software for accepting, processing and judging Goldie nominations.
➢ Contact key stakeholders via qualitative and quantitative surveys for
- pinions on ways to improve the awards.
▪ Awards administrators and board liaisons (findings from 11 of 12 reported 8/15/16) ▪ Publishers (findings from 11 of 12 reported 9/22/16) ▪ Awards nominators (findings from 32 of 107 reported 11/21/16) ▪ Goldie judges (findings from 15 of 31 former 2015 judges reported 12/12/16; findings from 43 of 69 2016 judges reported 3/19/17) ▪ GCLS membership (findings from 150 of 593 reported 5/31/17)
➢ Analyze key metrics to supplement survey results (findings reported 1/5/17). ➢ Propose awards categories and category structure for 2018 and
beyond (completed 4/10/17 and revised 6/6/17).
➢ Incorporate relevant best practices of other book awards.
SLIDE 5
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ The Goldie Awards provide an important service to the lesbian community
by shining a spotlight on books thought to be of high quality.
➢ Involvement by GCLS members in the awards process is considered vital
to its success – particularly by volunteers who serve as judges, awards administrators, board liaisons and Goldie presenters.
➢ Recent changes have improved the awards process in important ways:
▪ Encouraging authors to submit their work as e-books saves time and money. ▪ Using OpenWater online awards management software to receive nominations, communicate with judges and record Goldie ratings simplifies the administrative process. ▪ Investing in training for judges via webinars and other outreach helps make judging more consistent and objective.
➢ Awards nominators have extremely favorable opinions about the
submissions process they undertook to nominate books for the 2017 Goldies. OpenWater, in particular, is a major success story. ▪ Though opinions were still positive, nominators were less complimentary when evaluating their communication with GCLS throughout the process.
SLIDE 6
Awards Nominators: Opinions
71% 71% 69% 68% 66% 63% 60% 60% 59% 56% 56% 53% 50% 50% 47% 41%
Description of DEBUT AUTHOR easy to understand Judging guidelines for DEBUT AUTHOR thoroughly spelled out Adequate information on entry fees Easy to upload submissions in required eBook format Instructions on how to submit nominations easy to understand Call for nominations gave enough time to submit entries Eligibility requirements easy to understand Explanation of how many finalists and winners easy to understand Easy to fill out "Nominator Information" page Judging guidelines for GENRE categories thoroughly spelled out Easy to complete "Submissions Materials" requests OpenWater functioned well to accept, process nominations Descriptions of GENRE categories made it easy to know where to submit books Easy to create separate GCLS account to submit nominations Awards administrators provided sufficient mechanisms for questions, concerns Have received sufficient communications about entry so far
Percent Saying “Strongly Agree”*
(22% disagree) *Chose highest rating of 4 on a 1-to-4 scale, where 4 meant “strongly agree” and 1 meant “strongly disagree.”
SLIDE 7
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ Integrity and transparency of the GCLS awards process – both actual and perceived –
are absolutely essential to the organization’s reputation and the confidence of its
- members. Unfortunately, integrity has been called into question by some, and the
process isn’t as transparent as it could be. ▪ Perceived lack of transparency in how entries are judged is especially
- problematic. Dearth of feedback to entrants (and other judges) on how titles scored
exacerbates the issue, as does not knowing the identity of judges subsequent to the competition. ▪ Status of the Goldie Awards has been devalued, in the opinion of some, by judges whose ratings sometimes reflect “fandom” more than literary merit, and because too many books in small categories are finalists by default.
➢ The relationship between major publishers and GCLS is strained. Some publishers
believe the Goldie Awards benefit authors, readers and publishing companies, but others are hard pressed to name significant strengths. For some, the perceived weaknesses of the awards process are so great as to signal a potential withdrawal from future cycles. ▪ Among publishers, perceived weaknesses include lack of agreement about the role
- f “lesbian content” in submissions and “shifting rules” in the awards process.
➢ Despite perceptions to the contrary, “Big Eight” publishers are not substantially
- verrepresented when their percent of Goldie submissions in judged categories is
compared to their percent of winning titles.
SLIDE 8
Goldie Publishers: % of Titles by Size
➢ Big Eight publishers* accounted for 63% of 330 titles submitted in judged
categories in the 2016 awards competition.
➢ Multi-entry publishers outside the Big Eight (those with between two-and-nine
titles submitted) accounted for 25% of all judged titles in 2016, while single-entry publishers accounted for only 12%.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014 (N=246) 2015 (N=295) 2016 (N=330) 65% 64% 63% 21% 19% 25% 14% 16% 12%
% Titles in Judged Categories by Publisher Size and Awards Cycle
Big Eight Multi-Entry Publishers Single-Entry Publishers
*Big Eight publishers ranked by number of submissions in judged categories in 2016: Bold Strokes Books (65), Bella Books (48), Ylva Publishing (24), Affinity Ebook Press (18), Shadoe Publishing (17), Regal Crest Enterprises(14), Sapphire Books (12) and Bedazzled Ink (11).
SLIDE 9
Goldie Publishers: % of Titles vs. Winners
➢ The Big Eight are slightly overrepresented when their percent of submissions
is compared to their percent of winning titles.
▪ For the 2016 awards cycle, Big Eight publishers accounted for 63% of titles vs. 68%
- f winners. Multi-entry publishers were underrepresented (25% vs. 16%), while single-
entry publishers were overrepresented (12% vs. 16%).
JUDGED CATEGORIES* # Titles % Titles # Winning % Winning 2016 Awards Cycle: Big Eight Publishers 209 63% 26 68% Other Multi-Entry Publishers 82 25% 6 16% Single-Entry Publishers 39 12% 6 16% TOTAL 330 100% 38 100% 2015 Awards Cycle: Big Eight Publishers 190 64% 27 75% Other Multi-Entry Publishers 57 19% 5 14% Single-Entry Publishers 48 16% 4 11% TOTAL 295 100% 36 100% 2014 Awards Cycle: Big Eight Publishers 159 65% 24 67% Other Multi-Entry Publishers 52 21% 7 19% Single-Entry Publishers 35 14% 5 14% TOTAL 246 100% 36 100%
*Traditional Contemporary Romance, Debut Autor, Dramatic/General Fiction, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Mystery/Thriller, Romantic Suspense/Intrigue/Adventure, Paranormal/Horror, Historical Fiction, Erotica, Anthology/Collections (Fiction), Young Adult, Poetry, Creative Non- Fiction and Anthology/Collections (Creative Non-Fiction).
SLIDE 10
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ Two categories – Traditional Contemporary Romance and Debut Author – are unevenly
represented in allocation of judges, finalists and winners, based on their overall size and importance to the GCLS reading community. ▪ In 2016, TRC and Debut accounted for 40% of entries in judged categories, but only 16% of winners. By comparison, small categories with fewer than 15 entries accounted for 13% of titles but 37% of winners.
*Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. 2016: JUDGED CATEGORIES* # Titles % Titles # Finalists % Finalists # Winners % Winners Traditional Contemporary Romance 76 23% 8 8% 3 8% Debut Author 56 17% 8 8% 3 8% Large Category Subtotal 132 40% 16 15% 6 16% Dramatic / General Fiction 33 10% 8 8% 3 8% Science Fiction / Fantasy 31 9% 8 8% 3 8% Mystery / Thriller 30 9% 8 8% 3 8% Romantic Suspense / Intrigue / Adventure 27 8% 8 8% 3 8% Paranormal / Horror 17 5% 8 8% 3 8% Historical Fiction 16 5% 8 8% 3 8% Medium Category Subtotal 154 47% 48 46% 18 47% Erotica 11 3% 8 8% 3 8% Anthology / Collections (Fiction) 9 3% 8 8% 3 8% Young Adult 8 2% 8 8% 3 8% Creative Non-Fiction 6 2% 6 6% 2 5% Poetry 6 2% 6 6% 2 5% Anthology / Collections (Creative Non-Fiction) 4 1% 4 4% 1 3% Small Category Subtotal 44 13% 40 38% 14 37% Grand Total 330 100% 104 100% 38 100%
SLIDE 11
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ Former 2015 judges have numerous complaints that discourage future
participation in the judging process.
▪ Some categories have too many entries, given the amount of time required to read and properly evaluate each title. ▪ Titles sometimes entered in the wrong category. ▪ Evaluation forms are too long, too repetitious and too complicated. ▪ Evaluation questions for some categories aren’t specific enough or appropriate to the category. ▪ Judges don’t receive a formal “thank you” from GCLS board members for their efforts.
➢ 2016 judges are, for the most part, more complementary.
▪ They clearly understood the requirements for becoming a Goldie judge and had no trouble figuring out how to volunteer. ▪ They believed GCLS training programs on what to consider when judging books and how to use the OpenWater awards software were “sufficient.” ▪ They felt they received “sufficient” communications throughout the awards process and could contact awards administrators with questions or comments. ▪ To a lesser degree, they believed they had “sufficient time to read and evaluate all books in my category” and that “questions used to evaluate books in my category were clear and easy to understand.”
SLIDE 12
2016 Judges: Opinions
88% 88% 81% 77% 74% 72% 58% 21% I clearly understood the rules and requirements for becoming a Goldie judge. Early on, I received sufficient training on what to consider as I judged books in my category. It was easy for me to figure out how to volunteer to be a judge for the 2016 Goldie Awards. I felt I could call on awards administrators if I had questions or comments about the judging process. I received sufficient communications from awards administrators throughout the judging process. Early on, I received sufficient training on how to use the OpenWater awards software for judging books in my category. I had sufficient time to read and evaluate all books in my category. The questions used to evaluate books in my category were clear and easy to understand.
Percent Strongly Agree
(Rating of "4" on 1-to-4 scale, where "1" means "strongly disagree" and "4" means "strongly agree")
(28% disagree)
SLIDE 13
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ GCLS members had highly favorable views of the specialty awards competition for
the Ann Bannon and the Tee Corrine awards. ▪ Overwhelming majorities said they had plenty of time to cast votes for these awards and felt confident their votes were received, processed and reported correctly. ▪ Impressions also were positive, though less so, on this summary item: “GCLS members can count on their organization to conduct a fair and impartial competition for specialty awards.”
83% 72% 64% 52% 14% 22% 30% 35% 3% 6% 6% 13% GCLS members learn about specialty awards in plenty
- f time to cast their votes.
GCLS members can be confident their votes for specialty awards are processed and reported correctly. GCLS members can be confident their votes for specialty awards are received, despite continued requests to vote. GCLS members can count on their organization to conduct a fair and impartial competition for specialty awards.
Percent of Respondents Who Agree or Disagree That:
(N=150)
Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree
SLIDE 14
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ Nine in ten Ann Bannon and Tee Corrine voters agreed it was easy “to use the online
technology to vote for my top three choices.” Opinions were divided on whether, in the second round of voting, members should be asked for only their top choice or top two
- choices. A slight majority favored asking voters just for their top choice.
➢ Three-quarters of Ann Bannon voters thought GCLS should ask only for their top
choice “among books they actually have read.”
➢ Voters showed a slight preference for allowing authors to receive the Ann Bannon award
in consecutive years. A majority (53%) thought winners should be retired to a Hall of Fame after two or three wins. A substantial minority felt the award should not be retired (33%) or retired after four wins (14%).
SLIDE 15
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ Three-quarters of voters felt the award should be renamed “the Tee Corrine
Favorite Cover Award to reflect that it actually is a ‘popular choice’ award.”
➢ Voters overwhelming endorsed allowing designers to receive the Tee Corrine
award in consecutive years. Seven in ten felt all covers, including those with stock art, should be eligible.
SLIDE 16
Overall Findings and Conclusions
➢ Several ideas for improving the GCLS judging process have significant
support from 2016 judges and, based on qualitative interviews, from other key
- stakeholders. These include:
▪ Disqualifying books from the awards competition if they are so poorly formatted that they are virtually impossible to read. ▪ Letting judges proclaim a book unworthy of an award early on so they don’t have to keep reading clearly inferior books. ▪ Balancing judges in each category to include readers, authors and editors. ▪ Beefing up training, especially for first-time judges. ▪ Splitting large categories into two or more smaller categories to reduce the number
- f books judges must read.
▪ Improving evaluation forms in a variety of ways:
- Limiting the number of sections that must be summarized in open-ended
comments.
- Revising questions so they are more easily understood by judges.
- Eliminating redundant questions.
- Revising “genre-specific” questions to be more reflective of a given category.
- Ensuring that rating scales make sense, based on the questions asked.
SLIDE 17
IRC Five Key Recommendations
➢Encourage participation. ➢Promote transparency. ➢Clarify specialty awards.
▪ Ann Bannon Popular Choice Award ▪ Tee Corrine Award for Outstanding Cover Design
➢Refine judged categories.
▪ For 2018 Goldie Awards ▪ For 2019 Goldie Awards
➢Address judging concerns.
▪ For 2018 Goldie Awards ▪ For 2019 Goldie Awards
SLIDE 18
Encourage Participation: Board Response
➢ Recommendations:
▪ Find new ways to recognize volunteer judges for the significant contributions they make to GCLS. ▪ Extend the term of awards administrators to benefit from prior experience. ➢ Board Response: ▪ The board will personally acknowledge judges through correspondence and at the GCLS awards ceremony. ▪ We will offer a free year of membership after three consecutive years of judging service, starting with 2017 judges. ▪ We will extend the term of awards administrators from two years to three years with one year overlapping.
SLIDE 19
Promote Transparency: Board Response
➢ Recommendations:
▪ Make sure GCLS members have plenty of opportunity to learn about, comment on, and participate in IRC work. ▪ At the 2017 Goldie Awards ceremony, list the names of all those who judged this year’s competition. ▪ Utilize OpenWater online awards management software to the extent possible, given the high marks it receives from awards administrators, nominators and judges. ➢ Board Response: ▪ Following the membership meeting, IRC members will participate in a
- ne-hour session so GCLS members can get detailed information on their
work. ▪ Names of judges will be listed in alphabetical order at Saturday’s awards
- ceremony. Going forward, the application form will include an opt-out option
for judges who do not want their names made public. ▪ We will name an “independent auditor” from among GCLS membership to audit finalists and winners to assure they are consistent with those identified by OpenWater.
SLIDE 20
Clarify Specialty Awards: Board Response
➢ Recommendations:
▪ For the Ann Bannon and Tee Corrine awards, continue allowing authors and designers, respectively, to receive the award in consecutive years. ▪ Include descriptions and judging guidelines on ballots to help guide voters. ▪ Stipulate that all covers, including those with stock art, should be eligible. ▪ Provide a link for purchasing books named as finalists:
- Thereby encouraging members to read Ann Bannon finalists prior to voting in
the second round.
- Thereby encouraging GCLS members to look at additional elements (how the
cover reflects the book’s content, whether it appeals to the intended audience, etc.) in the Tee Corrine competition.
➢ Board Response:
▪ We agree with these recommendations, though implementation issues must be resolved prior to providing a link for purchasing books named as finalists. ▪ We request additional research to determine why only one-third of eligible GCLS members typically vote for the specialty awards.
SLIDE 21
Refine Judged Categories: Board Response
➢ Recommendations:
▪ Endorse these “guiding principles” for future decision-making on GCLS awards categories and category structure:
- Category descriptions should tell readers what type of books they can expect –
romance, erotica, mystery, dramatic fiction, nonfiction, anthologies, historical, etc.
- Category descriptions should make it easy for authors and publishers to choose
the most appropriate categories in which to nominate their books.
- Categories should not be so large that volunteer judges can’t give books the
attention they deserve. Categories should not be so small that awards become
- meaningless. Being a “finalist” in a small category should not carry equivalent
weight.
- If a given category doesn’t have enough entries that year to be judged, there should
be a known and appropriate category to which those books can be transferred. Categories that have insufficient entries year after year should be dropped.
- Categories should be reevaluated after every awards cycle to be sure they reflect
reader interests and publisher priorities.
➢ Board Response:
▪ The Board accepts these guiding principles for future decision-making.
SLIDE 22
Refine Judged Categories: Board Response
➢ Recommendations for 2018 Awards:
▪ Separate Traditional Contemporary Romance into three subcategories, each requiring a happy or hopeful ending:
- Contemporary Romance: Short Novels (40,000 to 70,000 words)
- Contemporary Romance: Mid-Length Novels (70,001 to 85,000 words)
- Contemporary Romance: Long Novels (85,000 plus words)
▪ The word count distribution works out this way, based on 2017 TCR entries:
- Short Novels – 26 entries, or 36.1% of TCR entries
- Mid-Length Novels – 25 entries, or 34.7% of TCR entries
- Long Novels – 21 entries, or 29.2% of TCR entries
➢ Board Response: ▪ Beginning in 2018: ▪ Contemporary Romance categories will be revised in accordance with the recommendation. ▪ OpenWater will be asked to include word count in submission forms. ▪ We will consider a minimum 40,000 word count for novels submitted in judged categories.
SLIDE 23
Refine Judged Categories: Board Response
➢ Recommendations for 2018
Awards: ▪ Aggregate categories so there are at least six entries for judging to proceed. ▪ Adopt a 25% - 10% Rule to determine finalists and winners based on the number of category submissions:
- 25% of entries are finalists
- 10% of entries are winners
➢ Board Response:
▪ After rejecting three prior sliding scales submitted by the IRC, we agree this rule should be adopted, beginning with the 2018 awards cycle.
Number Entries Submitted # % # % # % # % 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 2 100% 1 50% 0% 0% 3 3 100% 1 33% 0% 0% 4 4 100% 1 25% 0% 0% 5 5 100% 2 40% 0% 0% 6 6 100% 2 33% 2 25% 1 10% 7 7 100% 2 29% 2 25% 1 10% 8 8 100% 3 38% 2 25% 1 10% 9 8 89% 3 33% 2 25% 1 10% 10 8 80% 3 30% 3 25% 1 10% 11 8 73% 3 27% 3 25% 1 10% 12 8 67% 3 25% 3 25% 1 10% 13 8 62% 3 23% 3 25% 1 10% 14 8 57% 3 21% 4 25% 1 10% 15 8 53% 3 20% 4 25% 2 10% 16 8 50% 3 19% 4 25% 2 10% 17 8 47% 3 18% 4 25% 2 10% 18 8 44% 3 17% 5 25% 2 10% 19 8 42% 3 16% 5 25% 2 10% 20 8 40% 3 15% 5 25% 2 10% 21 8 38% 3 14% 5 25% 2 10% 22 8 36% 3 14% 6 25% 2 10% 23 8 35% 3 13% 6 25% 2 10% 24 8 33% 3 13% 6 25% 2 10% 25 8 32% 3 12% 6 25% 3 10% 26 8 31% 3 12% 7 25% 3 10% 27 8 30% 3 11% 7 25% 3 10% 28 8 29% 3 11% 7 25% 3 10% 29 8 28% 3 10% 7 25% 3 10% 30 8 27% 3 10% 8 25% 3 10% 31 8 26% 3 10% 8 25% 3 10% 32 8 25% 3 9% 8 25% 3 10% 33 8 24% 3 9% 8 25% 3 10% 34 8 24% 3 9% 9 25% 3 10% 35 8 23% 3 9% 9 25% 4 10% 36 8 22% 3 8% 9 25% 4 10% 37 8 22% 3 8% 9 25% 4 10% 38 8 21% 3 8% 10 25% 4 10% 39 8 21% 3 8% 10 25% 4 10% 40 8 20% 3 8% 10 25% 4 10% 50 8 16% 3 6% 13 25% 5 10% 60 8 13% 3 5% 15 25% 6 10% 70 8 11% 3 4% 18 25% 7 10% 80 8 10% 3 4% 20 25% 8 10% CURRENT POLICY 25% - 10% RULE Finalists Winners Finalists Winners
NOTE: EXCEL formulas used for rounding to the nearest whole percent.
SLIDE 24
Refine Judged Categories: Board Response
➢ Recommendations for 2019 Awards:
▪ Require all titles entered in one or more Lesbian Audience categories to meet this GCLS requirement:
- “Content must include significant lesbian characters and/or themes and meet one or more
- f the following criteria: the main character identifies as a lesbian; the main character is or
ends up in a lesbian relationship; the theme or plot deals with lesbian issues or lesbian life.”
▪ Add a single category for General Audience titles with minimal lesbian content written by self-identified lesbians. These titles would not be eligible for entry in Lesbian Audience, the main parent category for GCLS awards.
➢ Board Response:
▪ The Board endorses the overall description of Lesbian Audience categories. ▪ The Board rejects the recommendation to add a General Audience category.
- Still, we recognize that a better way must be found to clarify the role of lesbian content than
for judges inconsistently to give entries +20 points for “significant lesbian content,” 0 points for “some lesbian content” and -20 points for “no lesbian content.”
SLIDE 25
Refine Judged Categories: Board Response
➢ Recommendations for 2019 Awards:
▪ Segment categories into four primary, mutually exclusive groups: Poetry; Fiction: Anthologies/Collections; Fiction: Novels; and Nonfiction. ▪ Change the Debut Author category to Debut Novel, restricting submissions to first-time novels.
- Require all Debut submissions to be entered in a Fiction: Novels category.
– This requirement eliminates entries in Poetry, Nonfiction and Fiction: Anthologies/Collections from the competition. Only five of 56 Debut entries in 2016 were from these categories.
- Let top, non-genre-specific scores determine finalists and winners.
▪ Approve requests for two additional categories: New Adult Fiction and Humor. ▪ Stipulate the time period for Historical Fiction to be at least fifty years in the past, dropping the confusing exception for authors “not alive at the time of those events.”
➢ Board Response:
▪ We agree with the Debut Novel recommendation and tentatively agree with category structure recommendations, beginning with the 2019 awards cycle.
- We encourage the IRC to seek additional feedback on an alternative proposal to
aggregate the two Erotica categories and to promote Humor to a primary category. ▪ The “fifty years in the past” recommendation for Historical Fiction will be adopted for the 2018 awards.
SLIDE 26
GCLS AWARDS CATEGORIES Lesbian Audience
Poetry Fiction: Anthologies/ Collections
Anthologies/ Collections: General Fiction Anthologies/ Collections: Erotica
Fiction: Novels
Mystery/ Thriller Romance Erotic Romance Romantic Suspense/ Intrigue/ Adventure Contemporary Romance Contemporary Romance: Short Novels Contemporary Romance: Mid-Length Novels Contemporary Romance: Long Novels Historical Fiction Humor* General Fiction Speculative Fiction Science Fiction/ Fantasy Paranormal/ Horror Young Adult Fiction New Adult Fiction** Debut Novel
Nonfiction
General Nonfiction Anthologies/ Collections: Nonfiction
General Audience
Refine Judged Categories
Proposed Category Structure for 2019 Awards
*Humor: Ranges from light and bubbly, to dark and warped, and includes comic situations, wry observations, satirical setups, or all of the above and
- more. This category would include any work of fiction that tells the story primarily through humor in any of its many forms.
**New Adult Fiction: The main focus of the plot must revolve around new adults and/or new adult issues. New adult protagonists are in the 18–30 age range. New adult fiction focuses on life after legal age, and how one deals with the new beginnings of adulthood such as leaving home, developing sexuality, and negotiating education and career choices.
SLIDE 27
Definitions of Proposed Additional Categories
➢ New Adult Fiction: This category is for any new adult novel, regardless of
- genre. The main focus of the plot must revolve around new adults and/or new
adult issues. New adult protagonists are in the 18–30 age range. New adult fiction focuses on life after legal age, and how one deals with the new beginnings of adulthood such as leaving home, developing sexuality, and negotiating education and career choices.
- Judging Guidelines: In this category, new adult themes are the focus of the novel. It
can be romance, science fiction or any other genre, but must focus on the 18-30 age
- group. These novels do not necessarily have to take place in the present. The works
are for and/or about lesbian issues, experiences, and lives.
➢ Humor: Humor ranges from light and bubbly, to dark and warped, and includes
comic situations, wry observations, satirical setups, or all of the above and
- more. This category would include any work of fiction that tells the story
primarily through humor in any of its many forms.
- Judging Guidelines: In this category, the humorous elements must be part of the
main plot/theme of the book. There can be romantic elements, but they are not necessarily the main focus. The works are for and/or about lesbian issues, experiences, and lives.
SLIDE 28
Refine Judged Categories: Board Response
➢ Recommendations for 2019 Awards:
▪ If a given category doesn’t have enough entries to be judged, there should be a known and appropriate category to which those books can be transferred.
➢ Board Response:
▪ We tentatively adopt this structure for aggregating categories:
Poetry (N=10) Anthologies/Collections: Fiction
- General Fiction (N=17)
- Erotica (N=3)**
Fiction Novels
- Mystery/Thriller (N=32)
- Romance
- Humor (N unknown)*
- Historical Fiction (N=20)
- General Fiction (N=26)
- Speculative Fiction
- Young Adult Fiction (N=14)
- New Adult Fiction (N unknown)*
- Debut Novel (N=37)
Nonfiction
- General Nonfiction (N=3)
- Anthologies/Collections: Nonfiction (N=2)
✓ Erotic Romance (N=8)** ✓ Romantic Intrigue/ Suspense/Adventure (N=36) ✓ Contemporary Romance: Long Novels (N=21) ✓ Contemporary Romance: Mid-Length Novels (N=25) ✓ Contemporary Romance: Short Novels (N=25) ✓ Science Fiction/Fantasy (N=26) ✓ Paranormal/Horror (N=17) *Authors submitting in new categories will be asked to name a second category in case numbers are insufficient for judging (five or fewer). ** Erotica categories to be combined if either insufficient for judging. ***Contemporary romance categories can be combined and/or recalculated, based on word count for a given year. NOTE: Number of entries per category estimated from 2017 award submissions.
SLIDE 29
Refine Judged Categories (for 2019 Awards)
➢ Applying the recommended 25% - 10% Rule to the new category structure to 322
submissions in 2017 would yield 80 finalists and 34 winners. ▪ Comparable numbers for 2016 were 330 submissions, 104 finalists and 38 winners.
➢ Effects of new categories proposed are unknown, as they might draw new entries or
simply shift entries from existing categories.
PROPOSED CATEGORIES: 2017 Estimates as of 1/22/17 ENTRIES # FINALISTS # WINNERS # General Audience Unknown Unknown Unknown Poetry 10 3 1 Anthologies/Collections: Fiction 20 5 2 Nonfiction 5 Mystery/Thriller 32 8 3 Romantic Suspense/Intrigue/Adventure 36 9 4 Erotic Romance 8 2 1 Contemporary Romance: Short Novels 25 6 3 Contemporary Romance: Mid-Length Novels 25 6 3 Contemporary Romance: Long Novels 21 5 2 Historical Fiction 20 5 2 Humor Unknown Unknown Unknown General Fiction 26 7 3 Science Fiction/Fantasy 26 7 3 Paranormal/Horror 17 4 2 Young Adult Fiction 14 4 1 New Adult Fiction Unknown Unknown Unknown Debut Novel 37 9 4 GRAND TOTAL 322 80 34
SLIDE 30
Address Judging Concerns: Board Response
➢ Recommendations:
▪ Disqualify poorly formatted, unreadable ebooks. ▪ Authorize the IRC to recruit GCLS members for subcommittees:
- To review and propose changes, as appropriate, in how judges are
recruited and assigned to categories, the composition of judging panels, blind judging, feedback to entrants and other judging-related issues.
- To revise, pretest and publish evaluation instruments for all judged
Goldie categories in time for the 2019 awards. ➢ Board Response: ▪ For the 2018 awards, there will be only one corrective opportunity to submit a viable ebook for judging (in three different formats). Printed books also must be of sufficient quality. Non-compliers will be excluded from the competition. ▪ We authorize extending IRC work for another year to look thoroughly at (1) judging-related issues and (2) evaluation instruments to recommend improvements for 2019 and beyond.
SLIDE 31
IRC Future Action Steps: WE NEED YOU!!!
➢ Publicize all recommended category descriptions and judging guidelines
for feedback from GCLS members. Make adjustments as necessary.
➢ Recruit GCLS members for subcommittees to review and propose changes, as
appropriate, in how judges are recruited and assigned to categories, the composition of judging panels, feedback to entrants and other judging-related concerns for the 2019 awards.
➢ Recruit GCLS members for subcommittees to revise, pretest and publish
evaluation instruments for all judged Goldie categories in time for the 2019 awards.
➢ Work with awards administrators and liaisons to implement recommended
improvements in the 2018 and 2019 awards.
➢ Recognize that participation of readers, authors, editors, publishers and