An important note for Hugo voting.

[lsanderson]

An important note for Hugo voting.

How to vote for No Award as your last best choice

Shamelessly Stolen from theweaselking

Comments

[quadong.livejournal.com]

I don't seem to be able to see the comments on that post, so maybe this is highly redundant, but the emphasis seems to be a bit off. The message should be:

1) Voting what you like, then No Award and stopping is fine.

2) Voting what you like, then No Award and then what you hate most is bad.

3) Voting what you like, then No Award and then all the rest of the candidates in order of how good they are (i.e. in reverse order of how bad it would be if they won) is also fine, and more expressive than option (1).

theweaselking doesn't quite ignore (3), but doesn't emphasize it or point out its advantages to (1).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

That point's made in the comments (I wonder why you can't see them? Oh well) and yeah, I was mostly ignoring 3. I was trying to address people who *think* voting No-Award-then-hate-vote is a downvote.

Kevin Standlee shows up in the comments and says The only reason to rank works after No Award is if you don't like them as a group, but do want to say, "If you must give the award to one of these pieces of junk, pick X over Y over Z."

Which is succinct and correct! And orthogonal to the error I was trying to correct, which was "if you don't mention it at all, you're saying it's worse than Z and you prefer Z to win over it."