The Best, as Opposed to the “Best”
We’ve been quiet so far on a topic that’s been polarizing the blogs of late - the Canadian Blogging Awards. The Bunker’s reticence has a few reasons. The folks organizing the Awards are all nice people and good bloggers trying to do something fun. The folks taking issue with some aspects of the Awards are all nice people and good bloggers raising some valid concerns. Unfortunately the whole controversy is playing out in a medium where the norm is acrimony and red-hot rhetorical gamesmanship. These are bloggers, arguing about blogging, for crissake - It’s a given that ANY disagreement is going to assume the proportions of a global crisis, and any attempt at compromise on anything is going to be scorned as a shameful and unacceptable capitulation.
So we’ve just kept our mouths shut and let a bunch of folks we like and respect thrash it out.
But speaking as a sometimes professional evaluator of stuff, I thought I would add one comment about the notion of selecting the “best” of any category of blog.
A brief digression for illustrative purposes. Ottawa’s free arts and culture tabloid, the Ottawa Express, runs an annual poll to establish “the Best” in a number of categories. For a number of years, it decreed that Ottawa’s “best” hamburgers are to be found at Harvey’s, at the Rideau Shopping Centre.
Now, this always raised, to me, a couple of questions. What distinguishes these hamburgers from the other, identical, hamburgers served at the Harvey’s six blocks away on Sparks St.? Or at any of the Harvey’s establishments in Ottawa? Or Canada? And precisely what was it about these Harveyburgers that made them superior to the burgers served at, let’s say, “The Works”? Certainly not the quality of the meat, the bread, the service, the variety, the accompaniments, the atmosphere, the size…in all these particulars Harvey’s was, by any measure, inferior. The price? Maybe (compared to “The Works”), but the category was “best”, not “cheapest”. What, then?
A bit of reflection, of course, shows that the Ottawa Express poll is actually not identifying the “best” burger in Ottawa. It is identifying “The Hamburger Which the Largest Number of Readers of The Ottawa Express Will Identify As ‘Best’ Without Any Definition of The Term Or Selection Criteria”. That’s not exactly the same as “Best”.
To actually determine the “Best” of anything, a few basic steps are required.
1) You first have to decide what “best” means. What criterion, or combination of criteria, will be used to determine the “best”? Measured by some criteria, MacDonald’s is the “Best” restaurant in the world - measured by others, it falls somewhat short of Beckta’s or L’Atelier de Joël Robuchon. “Small Dead Animals”, the MacDonald’s of the Canadian Conservative blogosphere, is widely read, has a fiercely loyal following, and can mobilize its network to vote repeatedly. That may reflect some folks’ notion of “best”, but not everyone’s.
2) You have to decide how to define your sample. It’s entirely possible that the best burger in Ottawa is being made as we speak by my aunt Bernice for my cousin’s lunch. However, that falls outside the range admitted for consideration by Ottawa Express, which is “top X number of burger joints nominated by readers of the Ottawa Express”…a fairly limited sample.
3) You have to decide how to apply your criteria fairly, objectively and consistently to your sample. One way to do that is to define the criteria, and ask people to vote based on your criteria: but of course you have no way of knowing the extent to which they’ll agree. Another way is to define objective indicators for your criteria, collect the data, and analyze it.
So, if you REALLY wanted to determine the best hamburger within a defined sample, you’d:
- define evaluation criteria (which might include price, flavour on a scale, variety of choices, quality of meat, etc.)
- determine the importance of each criterion (does price matter as much as quality of meat?)
- define the indicators that will allow you to rate each sample under each of your criteria
- assess the samples and multiply each sample’s score in each criterion by its importance
- compare your findings.
That still doesn’t create a universal “best”. But it does give you a result that has a meaning…as opposed to a result that simply reflects the application of undefined criteria by an undefined group of respondents within an undefined sample.
Most current blog awards simply illustrate which blogs can mobilize a large number of voters. The assumption underlying that premise, I guess, is that an excellent blog will motivate people to do so more than a bad one. But that ain’t so. SDA and Raymi undoubtedly have their strengths - but it would be hard to suggest that they’re better written, better informed, or more supportive of intelligent discussion than other sites that fare less well. If your personal criteria for “best” include a high level of mindless acrimony or occasional boobs, fair enough - but those criteria may not be universally shared.
Awards that DON’T define selection criteria are still fun, and it’s always neat to get a nomination or a win. But we need to remember what’s being measured here - not merit, not quality, but the capacity to mobilize a network.
Well, simply put, there is no criterion for “best”. It’s a popularity contest, meaning the blogs with the most readers will fare best. This means that Kate of SDA, whom I would not consider by any stretch of the imagination to be the best blogger, will win best blogger nevertheless. As for Raymi, I shouldn’t like to denigrate her particular style, nor take away from her obvious talents, but she is anything but a good writer. Intelligence? Informed? I doubt any such thing is relevant. Popularity, as in high school, will dictate the so-called “best”.
The reason I support the awards in principle is in the spirit of friendship and a means of bringing people from across party lines together in a friendly competition of meaningless and ultimately intangible success. As corny as it is, the most apt saying would be that the winner in a blog competition is the person having the most fun. Getting voted best blog won’t bring you more money, since this is an unpaid gig, so we’ll settle for accolades and friendly free syndication.
[...] my little spiel on it today is related to what StageLeft talks about here. I agree with the concerns brought up about dedicated supporters of any one blog going out and mass [...]
I sort of wish that I’d read this post before I spouted off earlier this week. What you say is very sensible here, sir, and I salute you.
Blog awards is one thing, but it gets really tricky with political blogs. Most people are extremely partisan, and they do not only want to see their favourite blog win, but also one that represents their personal ideology (and once ideology is in play, corruption will slip in too in short order).
As you say, SDA has its strong points, as do others at the opposing end of the political spectrum. I do enjoy MyBlahg, for example, and even list it on my RECOMMENDED BLOGS blogroll.
But let’s be honest: how many partisan and/or ideology-driven bloggers/readers of blogs are “man” enough to admit that there are also good (even bloody well written and thought-out) blogs in the opposing camp? YOU can acknowledge such a simple fact, as well as I can, but the majority of bloggers and blog readers cannot, unfortunately.
James, I thought your CBA post extremely articulate and well considered, as always, and I agreed with it. I’ve always enjoyed the CBAs: as you and others have noted, they’re a great way to learn about good blogs I would otherwise never have read. And there’s always at least one wonderful subplot each year: SUZANNE’s hilarious fit of most un-Christian pique about Raymi’s victory last year was worth the price of admission.
I’ll vote again this year, and I expect to be alternately amused, appalled and pleased by the results. But I don’t mistake them for more than they are. If next year they adopt another approach, they could actually become the first Canadian awards that recognize merit rather than networking capacity.
It’s the confusion of those two very different kinds of measurement that’s annoying about the current setup. If the freepers (whether voting at the CBA or lobbying for Tommy Douglas/Pierre Trudeau as the best/worst Canadians) acknowledged that their “victory” was a triumph of networking, no problem. One would wonder why they bothered, but heck, everyone needs a hobby. But it’s the dishonest pretence that a freeped result has the OTHER kind of meaning - that it’s somehow a real expression of public sentiment and a validation - that’s hypocritical and self-defeating.
Blogging from Lincoln, Nebraska
This may be the first time that I’ve had to blog tethered to a desktop computer in several months. I have wireless at home, there was wireless at the motel I stayed at in Kalamazoo (and more such installations seem…
balbulican, from what I know of you, I think you’re an intelligent, thoughtful, skilled writer who is afflicted of some rather dubious notions about conservatism, but you have nonetheless always shown yourself to be principled and even-handed in your commentary. Which is why your nomination for Canadian Sentinel as Best Conservative blog comes as such a disappointment because not only does it speak to your total disregard for your claimed intent on Scott Tribe’s blog to honour the spirit of the competition, but you deliberately nominate a person whom you consider to be of the lowest moral fibre and reproach. I find it insulting not as a conservative, but as a blogger. I wish you would leave the nominations to serious replies, and if you’re bored, may I suggest the game of Checkers? It’s freely available on Yahoo! games.
“You deliberately nominate a person whom you consider to be of the lowest moral fibre and reproach.”
My dear fellow, you do a shocking dishonour to one of your own. If you feel that my good friend and esteemed co-blogger Canadian Sentinel does not merit your support, then I encourage you to exercise your freedom to vote against him. However, he has a large and loyal cheering section here, not unlike the popularity enjoyed by William Hung, late of American Idol, to whom he bears an oblivious resemblance: surely you would not deny us the opportunity of helping him to achieve a summit so earnestly desired by both him and ourselves?
balbulican, please grant me the benefit of the equality of respect for my intellect you would bestow upon your other friends here. I know that you find Sentinel repugnant in every way, and only nominated him in some kind of petulantly childish way of undermining and ridiculing any credibility these awards have.
I know you’re better than that.
Heh. I’ll grant respect for intellect while deducting a corresponding number of points for an apparent absence of humour, Raphael.
It amuses me to nominate Sentinel. It’s a comment on both his blog and on the stupido-URQ fringe he so ably epitomizes. Sorry it doesn’t amuse you.
I’m sorry, too.
And I’m sorry I’ll have to take the time this year to get a group to decide what to do about the joke nominations wasting our time, and the time of the bloggers who are nominated and possibly don’t want to be.
Saskboy, I realize you’re under stress. But consider, please:
- The Sentinel has been nominated for the CBAs before, and has also been nominated for other blog awards. This delights him and his readership.
- For those awards where he actually gets through the gate, he routinely gets about 1% of the vote. There are folks out there who authentically think his blog is great.
- I personally prefer his site to Kathy Shaidle’s or Girl on the Right, either of whom would, I imagine, be accepted as perfectly credible nominees. Scenty is dim, shockingly ignorant, and hilariously incapable of reasoned thought - but he is not, as far as I can tell, driven by hatred. His dire meditations on the impending collapse of the world leave readers laughing, not feeling defiled.
Bottom line: he IS the best example I can think of of one stratum of conservative thought in Canada. No harm is done to the Awards through his nomination: those who feel he’s an amusing absurdity or an intellection abomination will presumably vote for one of the other excellent conservative nominees, and those who share his views have someone to vote for.
Oh, and Raphael? I personally don’t consider stupidity, ignorance or the lack of capacity for reasoned thought to be indicative of “moral” stature.
Very well, you don’t think Scenty is immoral. But you’ve admitted your little “joke” has been a point you’ve tried to make to show your contempt for the ideology of conservatism, picking the absolute extreme example you could think of [stupidity, ignorance, unreasonable]. Saskboy has chided you for it. You could have picked a thoughtful conservative blog [hint, hint] but instead you decided to get cute. Seriously though, I don’t care about being nominated, but there are many fine conservative writers who are anything but stupid or ignorant, and could very well give you a run for your money in argument any day of the week.
But whatever floats your boat, balby.
“Chided” is perhaps too harsh. But “grumbled” is apt.
To atone, please nominate blogs you feel are worthy of WINNING, not just competing ;-)
“But you’ve admitted your little “joke” has been a point you’ve tried to make to show your contempt for the ideology of conservatism, picking the absolute extreme example you could think of [stupidity, ignorance, unreasonable].”
Wrong. I am showing my contempt for absurd, extreme “position” (to the extent it can be characterized as a “position” espoused by Scenty, who exemplifies many of the traits I find disturbing among the stupider neo-conservatives. As far as the “ideology of conservatism”, whatever that is, I’m not contemptuous of it, and personally share many of what I take to be its tenets.
“there are many fine conservative writers who are anything but stupid or ignorant, and could very well give you a run for your money in argument any day of the week.”
Absolutely. And they’re being nominated as we speak. Please refer to the excellent list of nominees on the CBA website, and to the final paragraph of my response number 11, above.
“But whatever floats your boat, balby”
Quite. I appreciate your permission to do what it amuses me to do.
“To atone, please nominate blogs you feel are worthy of WINNING, not just competing ;-)”
With the proviso that this act is not “atonement”, which would imply acceptance of guilt, I shall do so immediately.
Wait a cotton-pickin’ second here. (Looking at that term written down it suddenly occurs to me it’s doubtless loaded with unpleasant history.)
Ottawaniantian readers of an arts and culture tabloid picked Harvey’s as the Best Burger? Some californicated sprocket in my brain just went ping.
Generally, I see “the best of” as a measure of what is trendy with the audience. On the Wet Coast, even if a person’s preferred burger was a Big Mac, you’d have to torture them with week long ferry waits before they’d admit it to a poll. They pick the hip eateries that are non-franchised or small-chains. Usually these places *do* have good whatever they’re the best at, but really it’s about being able to say you knew the Spice Girls when they were underground.
Do you Ottawanionianieists have no pomposity? This surprises me. Perhaps you could use a shipment from the coast. We’ll have you besting the hippest places tickity-boo.
Yeah, but the Harvey’s at the Rideau centre has TWO Ottawa Express kiosks just outside their door, and it’s free. Trust me, we can rival you West Coast Trendoids for pomposity anytime, except we do it in a kind of leaden, humorless way, without the saving BC leavening of self-mockery.