For my consideration
Wednesday, February 21st, 2007Damien asked me to be one of the judges in 7 of the 21 categories at this year’s Irish Blog Awards, which I was happy to do.
The categories I was asked to be a judge in are as follows:
Best Newcomer
Best Podcaster
Best Podcast
Best Business Blog
Best Personal Blog
Best Blog Post
Best Videocast
Before any of the nominees start sending me flowers and naked pictures of themselves, I can tell you that I’ve made my decisions on each of the above and have sent them on to IBA HQ… feel free to send gifts all the same, but do so safe in the knowledge that it will have zero impact on your chances next Saturday.
Besides this, my voice is just one of many judges putting their own opinions forward, so all my careful consideration may end up completely irrelevant anyway!
I have to say, in some cases the points I gave a blog came naturally to me, but others were not so easy to judge and I often struggled to pick one over the other… I think I was as fair as possible about it though.
But best of luck to everyone in all of the 21 categories, the night should be one to remember.
(Oh, and just a comment on my list of predictions - they don’t necessarily reflect the blogs I gave top marks to - my predictions were not always the ones I thought deserved it most…)
Blogs elsewhere
February 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Damien asked me to be one of the judges in 7 of the 21 categories at this year’s Irish Blog Awards, which I was happy to do.
That’s a nice change to finally see some information about who the judges are. Think you can convince him to this year be more open and transparent?
I’ve complained about this secrecy, and for my troubles been banned from commenting on Mulley’s Blog Awards website.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
(a banning, moreover, which doesn’t seem to extend to comments derogatory of _me_. Nice.)
February 26th, 2007 at 1:15 am
I can’t really convince Damien to do anything, and I can understand the current policy of the judges being free to out themselves or not if they want to.
Frankly I don’t see the problem with people knowing if I’m a judge and of what - even if I’m afraid of offending someone the final result is by no means reflective of the way I voted -
However, you know yourself once all identities are revealed people will be accused of voting for mates even if they all voted on merit. As well as that the selection of judges would be called uneven irregardless of the reality of the matter too - just to complicate the matter you’d have people complaining because none of their mates got a chance to vote for their blog.
As for your ban - certainly nothing I can do there - you’re going to have to figure that one out yourself.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I can’t really convince Damien to do anything, and I can understand the current policy of the judges being free to out themselves or not if they want to.
Hi Adam (and thank you for answering),
If these were being presented to the world as the “Damien Mulley Blog Awards” then, fine and dandy. But they’re not, are they?
Frankly I don’t see the problem with people knowing if I’m a judge and of what - even if I’m afraid of offending someone the final result is by no means reflective of the way I voted -
However, you know yourself once all identities are revealed people will be accused of voting for mates even if they all voted on merit.
Well, that’s not a suspicion that’s going to be put to rest by Mulley’s veil of secrecy over the whole proceedings, as I hope that you’ll agree.
As well as that the selection of judges would be called uneven irregardless of the reality of the matter too - just to complicate the matter you’d have people complaining because none of their mates got a chance to vote for their blog.
A rather more concrete complaint than that is that last year Damien Mulley publicly claimed that Microsoft exerted no influence over proceedings as a result of their sponsorship; as came out, this was a falsehood, as it turned out that a Microsoft employee was appointed a judge by Mulley in secret.
Hardly the role model of openess and transparency now, is that?
As for your ban - certainly nothing I can do there - you’re going to have to figure that one out yourself.
Don’t I know it, mate. The notion of a blogging “community” got a kick in the rear last year, didn’t it?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Hi Adam (and thank you for answering),
If these were being presented to the world as the “Damien Mulley Blog Awards” then, fine and dandy. But they’re not, are they?
Not sure what that’s got to do with the issue of judges being known or not.
Well, that’s not a suspicion that’s going to be put to rest by Mulley’s veil of secrecy over the whole proceedings, as I hope that you’ll agree.
I’d put money on my prediction coming through if the judges identities were all known, but yeah, it would be a matter of waiting and seeing. Frankly I don’t think there’s an ideal situation to solve your issue though.
A rather more concrete complaint than that is that last year Damien Mulley publicly claimed that Microsoft exerted no influence over proceedings as a result of their sponsorship; as came out, this was a falsehood, as it turned out that a Microsoft employee was appointed a judge by Mulley in secret.
Not something I’m aware of - I must have missed that. That said I’d have no problem with a person from any company being a judge as long as there was reason - for example an MS employee could be a well suited Tech judge.
The idea of the judging panel being solely blogger-based doesn’t appeal to me and isn’t something I’d see as progressive.
Don’t I know it, mate. The notion of a blogging “community” got a kick in the rear last year, didn’t it?
Not from what I saw - maybe you’re referring to something other than the IBAs now?
February 27th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Not sure what that’s got to do with the issue of judges being known or not.
Consider it this way - this is heralded as the “Irish” Blog Awards. Well, shouldn’t we (Irish bloggers) get a little more transparency as to what’s afoot behind the scenes of this thing?
Frankly I don’t think there’s an ideal situation to solve your issue though.
Yes there is - full transparency. What is there to hide?
Not something I’m aware of - I must have missed that.
Here’s a recap.
for example an MS employee could be a well suited Tech judge.
That’s a matter of opinion, I’m afraid. MS being a convicted - and not very repentent, from what I can see - monopolist.
Not from what I saw - maybe you’re referring to something other than the IBAs now?
Google “udaras+email”.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Consider it this way - this is heralded as the “Irish” Blog Awards. Well, shouldn’t we (Irish bloggers) get a little more transparency as to what’s afoot behind the scenes of this thing?
It using the term “Irish” doesn’t mean anything in reality - there are no obligations that come with it. Take the Irish Book Awards - I don’t think the judges there have been made public either (correct me if I’m wrong).
Yes there is - full transparency. What is there to hide?
Hiding isn’t the issue, but I think there are valid reasons for leaving it to the individual judges.
I would support full disclosure of all judges only if said judges were completely independent of blogging and bloggers - like in the British Blog Awards.
Now, thanks for the recap.
You said:
Damien Mulley publicly claimed that Microsoft exerted no influence over proceedings as a result of their sponsorship
Actually, he said they put no conditions on their sponsorship.
as came out, this was a falsehood, as it turned out that a Microsoft employee was appointed a judge by Mulley in secret.
I hardly consider it a secret that came out when said employee announced it himself under no pressure whatsoever (as he was free to do).
You’re also working under the assumption that a) MS Corp. were pulling the strings of Burke and b) their vote was any more important than the others. You’re also ignoring the possibility that said blogger deserved to be a judge on his own merits - I doubt I was picked for the work I’ve done in the “real world”, for example.
That’s a matter of opinion, I’m afraid. MS being a convicted - and not very repentent, from what I can see - monopolist.
Again you’re confusing an employee with the company - it’s also worth pointing out that a company that can make itself a monopoly would have a pretty good knowledge of the tech sector (irregardless of their morals).
Google “udaras+email”.
No need - but I fail to see how that had any impact on the blog community at all.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:46 pm
It using the term “Irish” doesn’t mean anything in reality - there are no obligations that come with it. Take the Irish Book Awards - I don’t think the judges there have been made public either (correct me if I’m wrong).
That’s an issue for Irish authors. I’m talking about this “Irish” Blog Awards, though, as you may note.
Hiding isn’t the issue, but I think there are valid reasons for leaving it to the individual judges.
I would very much like to hear them.
I would support full disclosure of all judges only if said judges were completely independent of blogging and bloggers - like in the British Blog Awards.
I think
Actually, he said they put no conditions on their sponsorship.
Damien also added:
“We don’t now have to be called The Microsoft Irish Blog Awards or The Vista Irish Microsoft MSN Blog Awards or anything else … Someone from Microsoft is going to come along (at my request) and talk and answer questions about IE7 and RSS ”
At the very least this leaves readers with the implication that Microsoft had no involvement other than making a goodwill gesture and sending a speaker. Clearly, this was not the case, but Mulley failed to inform his readership - many of whom he surely knows have as much of a problem with Microsoft’s historical skullduggery as I do.
I hardly consider it a secret that came out when said employee announced it himself under no pressure whatsoever (as he was free to do).
See above.
You’re also working under the assumption that a) MS Corp. were pulling the strings of Burke
No, I’m not. But Burke _is_ a Microsoft employee, and very many people have a problem with the notion of Microsoft getting their claws into this in any shape or fashion.
and b) their vote was any more important than the others.
I’ve never claimed that - but you having brought it up, we don’t know either way, do we?
You’re also ignoring the possibility that said blogger deserved to be a judge on his own merits
Do we know?
I doubt I was picked for the work I’ve done in the “real world”, for example.
Again, we’ve no idea of how the judges were picked, or why, or who they are, or even how many.
Again you’re confusing an employee with the company
I think you’re being obtuse as regards employees representing their companies at something like this. Of course he’s there as a Microsoft employee.
it’s also worth pointing out that a company that can make itself a monopoly would have a pretty good knowledge of the tech sector (irregardless of their morals).
Right.
No need - but I fail to see how that had any impact on the blog community at all.
I guess you don’t read widely.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 am
That’s an issue for Irish authors. I’m talking about this “Irish” Blog Awards, though, as you may note.
My point being that having the word “Irish” at the start doesn’t mean anything - it’s just a signpost really.
Does it mean it’s representative of all Irish bloggers? No.
I would very much like to hear them.
I already gave them.
Damien also added:
“We don’t now have to be called The Microsoft Irish Blog Awards or The Vista Irish Microsoft MSN Blog Awards or anything else … Someone from Microsoft is going to come along (at my request) and talk and answer questions about IE7 and RSS ”
At the very least this leaves readers with the implication that Microsoft had no involvement other than making a goodwill gesture and sending a speaker. Clearly, this was not the case, but Mulley failed to inform his readership - many of whom he surely knows have as much of a problem with Microsoft’s historical skullduggery as I do.
Back to the point that you’ve dismissed for no reason - Microsoft didn’t have an influence on the vote, Burke did.
Assuming otherwise is like assuming that each judge is voting on behalf of their company, it just isn’t happening.
See above.
See what? You’re making it sound like someone busted open a dark secret, when in reality it was out in the open instantly as a result of a post by the judge in question. You may believe that Mulley’s comments implies that no MS employee would be considered for judging regardless of their abilities, but I don’t read that.
No, I’m not. But Burke _is_ a Microsoft employee, and very many people have a problem with the notion of Microsoft getting their claws into this in any shape or fashion.
Right - so should we assume that when a civil servants (who blogs) is a judge in a category, then the State has gotten its claws into the awards too? Of course not, and I can think of very many people who have a problem with that corporation too.
I’ve never claimed that - but you having brought it up, we don’t know either way, do we?
So should we assume the worst until someone can prove all our suspicions to be invalid?
Do we know?
Know what? I said you’re overlooking the possibility.
Again, we’ve no idea of how the judges were picked, or why, or who they are, or even how many.
Again, are we to assume the worst?
I think you’re being obtuse as regards employees representing their companies at something like this. Of course he’s there as a Microsoft employee.
Why do you say that? IIRC, category sponsors were allowed to have their representatives there to be photographed with the winners - the same applies this year… but MS weren’t a category sponsor, so there was no need for them to have a representative at the IBAs 2006… they may well have, and I’m not sure who that was, but you seem to be sure it was Burke.
Anyway - even if it was, that doesn’t equate to him being an MS rep when he voted, does it?
I guess you don’t read widely.
Widely enough, thanks.
I kept good track of that issue, and I’m failing to see how the community got a kicking from it.
I mean, you’re talking about a (now former) blogger, who had a blog without comments (not something I consider akin to a community player, you?), who broke his own site’s rules to attack a non-blogger who emailed him.
So exactly who involved here was part of the blog community, and how exactly did the community suffer in any way, or get a kicking, or be tarnished at all?
This was, in my eyes, an email spat that went public (and a newspaper thought was good filler) - at what point does this become a community matter?
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Grr. This thread has ended up with me getting increasingly angry, when “great disappointment” was what I started out with. Look, Microsoft and Edelman have both been caught with their fingers in blog-related scandals in the past year (Edelman seem to be attempting to specialise in this).
If you can’t see what’s wrong with their being allowed to put their names to these “Irish” Blog awards, then - fine.