Back in January, we asked for feedback on the nominating process, and you answered. Big time. And we heard you.
We also promised you’d be invited to our post mortem, the term editors use for dissecting their publication after it hits the stands. Or, in this case, the tubes.
What went right? What needs tweaking? What needs an extreme makeover?
It’s time for you to tell us.
Since we’ve already covered the nominations process, we’ll let that be for now.
Here are other topics for you to consider:
Judging:
- how panelists and judges are chosen
- guidelines and criteria
- timeline for judging
Website:
- design and ease of use
- content–profiles, book reviews, Q&As, etc.
Organization:
- inclusiveness
- transparency
- marketing and PR
These are just some ideas. There aren’t really any limits on what you can comment about. Cybils organizers will be having our own separate post mortem so we can discuss your insights and add many of our own. We’re hoping your comments will lead to an even better Cybils in 2007.
Our only rule is that you keep it civil. Otherwise, have at it!
Thanks again,
Anne, Kelly and the rest of the Cybils gang.