I've kind of been of the opinion that Ursa should have a 6th nominee that is selected purely by an expert in the field.
Like for instance, for 2017 non-fiction I would have nominated Boozy Badger's Sovereign Citizen article, which was not nominated. I'm sure those that didn't are now palming their face. It was one of the most talked about articles from a non-furry (at the time) of the year:
1) It was what introduced the furry fandom to Boozy Barrister, and furry's response to said article was Boozy's entrance into the fandom. Which was kind of the strangest way we gained a member.
2) It provided an outsider's (at the time) perspective on the Rocky Mountain Fur Con situation and educated that there are those in the fandom that were part of a group and that this group was well known outside the fandom (Sovereign Citizens).
3) It was an entertaining read.
There is just too much content being made for everyone to be an expert on everything, so giving everyone the option to vote on everything or nominate everything will cause some big items to be missed that to others would be dead obvious. Assigning a curator for each section to inject a 6th nomination among the 5 selected would both highlight what the people found popular and what the expert curator in the area thinks was the most significant.
The curator would obviously not be able to nominate their own content.
I've kind of been of the opinion that Ursa should have a 6th nominee that is selected purely by an expert in the field.
Like for instance, for 2017 non-fiction I would have nominated Boozy Badger's Sovereign Citizen article, which was not nominated. I'm sure those that didn't are now palming their face. It was one of the most talked about articles from a non-furry (at the time) of the year:
1) It was what introduced the furry fandom to Boozy Barrister, and furry's response to said article was Boozy's entrance into the fandom. Which was kind of the strangest way we gained a member.
2) It provided an outsider's (at the time) perspective on the Rocky Mountain Fur Con situation and educated that there are those in the fandom that were part of a group and that this group was well known outside the fandom (Sovereign Citizens).
3) It was an entertaining read.
There is just too much content being made for everyone to be an expert on everything, so giving everyone the option to vote on everything or nominate everything will cause some big items to be missed that to others would be dead obvious. Assigning a curator for each section to inject a 6th nomination among the 5 selected would both highlight what the people found popular and what the expert curator in the area thinks was the most significant.
The curator would obviously not be able to nominate their own content.