Niblets Nominations

January 23, 2010
By

Nominations for the Niblets Awards are now in. A few minor changes have been made to screen for category, and to avoid duplication. Nominations that did not fall under 2009 were eliminated. New blogs were accepted if they had a very small bit of introductory posting before 2009.  When an author had two or more posts nominated for the same category, one representative post was chosen. The order of appearance is alphabetical; however, when links are included they came out alphabetical by link.

A few more nominations have come in by email and will be added as soon as possible.

Voting will start on Monday. Until then, enjoy perusing these Bloggernacle favorites for 2009 and let us know if there are any problems, questions, missing or wonky links, etc.

Best Big Blog

Best group blog

Best Humorous Blog

Best Solo Blog

Best New Blog

Best Blog Layout/Graphics

Best Overall Blogger

Best Commenter

  • Annegb
  • Ardis Parshall
  • BBell
  • Brian Duffin
  • Bridget Jack Meyers
  • Chris H.
  • CrazyWomanCreek
  • Derek
  • Douglas Hunter
  • Hawkgrrl
  • Jacob J.
  • Kaimi
  • Kristine
  • Mark B.
  • MFranti
  • MikeinWeHo
  • Naismith
  • Queuno
  • Ray
  • Steve Evans
  • Tatiana

Most Memorable Comment

  • Ardis Parshall’s comment #5 on 5 is the Loneliest Number
  • Brad’s comment #95 on Are Right-Wing Mormons More Likely
  • Bridget Jack Meyers’ comment #16 at Like a Virgin
  • Margaret Young’s comment #3 on They Fought as they were Taught

Funniest Thread

Best Post Title

Best Humorous Post

Best Historical Post

Best Personal Post

Best Spiritual Post

Best Doctrinal Post

Best Current Events Post

Best Mormon-Themed Podcast

Best Book/Article Review

Best Contribution to or Post about the Bloggernacle

Best Contribution to Interfaith Dialogue

Write-in Category (Choose 3)

Tags:

33 Responses to Niblets Nominations

  1. Confused
    January 23, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I thought nominations were going through the 24th. I’ve been busy all week and was waiting until the weekend to get to it. Y’all cut the nominations short last year too. I think you should stick to your dates, no?

    Also, here is some follow up from last year:

    Thanks to MM for the work that goes into hosting this. I just want to follow up on some concerns raised last year about the process:

    I’d like to ask those running this event to consider a few things: 1) to not make vote results viewable until the end 2) include a chronological view of vote patterns in the results, ie, how many votes were received on what day of voting for each catagory, 3) Shorten the voting period to no longer than a week. 4) Don’t accept all nominations at face value–the Niblets committee should examine each nomination and do any vetting (though very lightly–take out or reassign only the most obviously misplaced nominations) that may be necessary, using some common sense. See this comment and those immediately preceding and following: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/06/2008-niblets-rock-the-vote-here/#comment-89196
    5) The analysis of what happened in one scenario and what happened in another is all great, but maybe make some clear criteria for “winning” and stick to it, instead of leaving some categories as going one way in this scenario and another way in this other scenario. Relatedly,
    6) Make some effort to eliminate single-issue votes (must fill out 1/3 of the ballot to be counted?) and finally, 7) read through the comments on last years results thread and rethink ways to keep serious votes from being excluded and spurious votes from being counted.

    I think that having viewable results in real time last year encouraged ballot stuffing instead of encouraging voters to focus on content. Having the voting open for so long last year was unnecessary when it was clear that within the first three or four days the majority of votes had been cast and by likely the more active and informed ‘nacle participants, prolonging it encouraged a rush at the end in some categories to get as many ballots stuffed in as possible. Also note that last year voting numbers hit rock bottom on the 7th day.

    These are not demands, just hopeful suggestions. I’m not interested in fighting about it, I make these suggestions with the best of spirits and intentions. You or others may not agree, and that’s fine. Either way, thank you for putting this on and congrats to all nominees for all the great work this past year.

    I applaud efforts to improve over last year including creating a separate category for humorous blogs and excluding for-profit blogs, and otherwise refining the categories.

    Thanks.

  2. January 23, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Cheryl,

    You are amazing. Totally amazing.

    John Dehlin

  3. January 23, 2010 at 11:12 am

    I just read through the nomination thread, and I can’t find anywhere where Our Thoughts was nominated for best group blog.

  4. January 23, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Confused, thank you for your suggestions. We appreciate your interest in the Niblets!
    I want to reassure you that our esteemed panel went over all of the suggestions from last years’s Niblets and considered them carefully.

    1. Our current poll plugin does not allow for hiding the results. We looked at some alternatives, and decided to stay with the one we have. We think seeing the results as you vote adds to the excitement!
    2. Ziff will consider doing this. Please remember he has a family and a full-time job. I thought he did a fantastic job last year at analyzing the results, gearing his report to the concerns that were expressed.
    3. The voting period is slightly shorter this year than last.
    4. We have done some light vetting this year.
    5. Last year was unusual. I don’t foresee this being necessary this year. We expect to have clear winners in all of the categories.
    6. Again, last year there was some issue with single-issue voters because we had blogs that were a bit outside of our (loosely defined) community. This year I think voters will have an interest in most of the categories. But if they decide they just want to vote for one or two—-so what?
    7. We have a system in place for determining if ballot-stuffing is occurring.

    I hope this has eased your mind.
    REMEMBER—-this is a GAME!! Have fun!

  5. January 23, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Feel free to accuse me of shameless self-promotion, but I think Kaimi’s “How Wide the Divide . . . and can we ever Bridget?” deserves a nod for Best Post Title. I’d never heard someone make that play on my name before.

    The even funnier part is, when Kaimi first told me about it, I totally didn’t get it. Yes, I am that slow.

  6. January 23, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Pardon me for this, but I also blog at FMH. That might be what got more attention. Although I’m very proud of Beginnings New and I’m grateful for the link to it.

  7. January 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Wow – I’m honored to be mentioned here. Thank you. Especially when I’ve been feeling like such a failure lately in the category of “contributing to interfaith dialogue”

  8. January 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Kim, Our Thoughts was one of the few nominations that got vetted for placement. Since we don’t have a “Best Canadian Blogs” category, it got put in the “Best Group Blogs.”

    Bridget, how DID we miss that one? We certainly have room for one more post title.

    Reese, we love your posts at FMH. There were a couple of bloggers who blog at two or more places and we couldn’t always fit both links in the available space. (same thing happened on Matt B.’s book review which has the incredibly LONG link of
    http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/book-review-lance-allreds-longshot-the-adventures-of-a-deaf-fundamentalist-mormon-kid-and-his-journey-to-the-nba-harpercollins-2009-a-pilgrims-progress/
    It just wouldn’t fit, so we did the best we could.)

    Jessica, thank you. Everyone who is mentioned here should ALREADY feel like a winner!

  9. January 23, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Best Canadian blog was supposed to be write-in nomination. I should have been clearer.

  10. Ray
    January 23, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    I don’t care much about the final vote, but I LOVE the chance to see so many wonderful posts in one place so I can go back and read things that moved me the first time I read them – and discover ones I missed originally.

    That’s the main reason why I voted to include so many posts in the categories. For me, it’s FAR more about recognizing amazing posts than excluding everything but the four or five best based on an “expert panel” vote. It’s like the argument against the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the sayings of Confucius and the Kama Sutra just because we already have the Bible. (OK, I added one just to see who is reading and paying attention – but for those who accept the Song of Solomon as inspired scripture, is it really that much of a . . . stretch?)

  11. Hawkgrrrl
    January 23, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    I didn’t realize I had so many nominations! Off to polish my trophy case . . .

  12. January 23, 2010 at 10:02 pm

    I am flattered to be nominated, particularly in the category of contributing to interfaith dialogue. Thanks for noticing the effort.

  13. January 23, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    Thanks. :)

  14. January 23, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Is it too late to nominate mfranti for her tireless work at fmh, tending comments and answering questions and community building?

  15. January 23, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    I would like to nominate BOMC for a write-in category: Worst Web Design.

  16. CarlosJC
    January 23, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    Probably too many nominations in each category.

    Maybe 4 or 5 in each would make the voting easier imho.

  17. CarlosJC
    January 23, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    “Bridget Jack Meyers’ comment #16 at Like a Virgin”

    To me that comment is highly offensive and ought to have been deleted.

    Not funny at all.

  18. Jared T.
    January 24, 2010 at 11:23 am

    I appreciate the nomination in the best contribution and write-in categories. Thank you very much.

    Having said that, i wish to withdraw from consideration from the Best Contribution category in deference to Edje’s excellent series on Mormon Taxonomy. I’d also like to withdraw from the write-in category in deference to John Hamer’s work.

    Please make these changes before voting opens. Thank you.

  19. January 24, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    #17 CarlosJC ~ To me that comment is highly offensive and ought to have been deleted.

    As opposed to an entire thread that makes the serious case that God the Father and the virgin Mary were groin buddies, which isn’t offensive to anyone in the slightest.

    Or in other words, I’d seriously reconsider my hierarchy of things that offend me if I were you.

  20. January 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    I feel like the shortening of Seawright’s post title in the current events category places it at a disadvantage, which is a shame because IMO that’s the winner. How about, “Tradeoff: Gay Marriage and Women’s Rights”?

  21. January 24, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    With a question mark at the end of the title, preferably.

  22. January 24, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Vote for me, and all of your wildest dreams will come true.

  23. CarlosJC
    January 25, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Ms. Jack Meyers #19,

    I didn’t bother reading that post but followed the link on this page (nominations) thinking about the upcoming voting.

    (I had not read most of what is nominated here)

    If the thread is about that, ‘groin buddies’, then it too would be offensive to me. But I’m not reading it to find out.

  24. January 25, 2010 at 12:37 am

    #23 CarlosJC ~ The thread “Like a Virgin” by Bored in Vernal is her argument that the old LDS view that God the Father had physical sex with Mary to cause the incarnation of Jesus is both compatible with the biblical and Book of Mormon data (i.e. Mary being called a “virgin”) and defensible, even preferable today. The idea is outrageously offensive to only about 99% of the non-LDS Christian world, and vast majority of the Mormons I’ve met aren’t so fond of it, either.

    So if you want to be offended by my comment, fair enough. But given the context of the discussion where it was made, you’re kind of missing the forest for the trees there.

    (BTW, BiV, this isn’t meant to be a commentary on your post. I’m just trying to summarize for Carlos.)

  25. CarlosJC
    January 25, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Ok Ms. Jack Meyers,

    That’s a decent explanation. Although for me it should be “incompatible” with biblical and BoM data, since she was a “virgin” giving birth. That is why the incest stories are highly offensive to me.

    Still can’t see your comment as appropriate, although I guess it has become “memorable” to me too. How will I ever forget it now?

  26. January 25, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    Does my blog post on “The Problem of Virginal Conception” offend?
    http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2009/12/hieros-gamos.html
    The point of the post was to challenge Bill McKeever’s and Aaron Shafovaloff’s dogmatism, and show that scripture does not definitively rule out sexual conception (hieros gamos).

  27. Frequent Lurker
    January 25, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Wow, big omission on solo blog and reviews for not including BHodges at Life on Gold Plates.

  28. January 26, 2010 at 12:44 am

    I agree, Frequent Lurker.

  29. Jason LeRoy Wharton
    January 29, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    I see that BCC is poised to win an award. If it does, God will not be pleased, and this will serve as a condemnation of the entire “Bloggernacle” community generally. I hereby invoke my Melchizedek Priesthood authority and dust-off my feet at anyone who votes for that den of reprobates.

  30. KateCTR
    January 30, 2010 at 8:39 am

    I agree with most of what is on here but the best thread/blog of the year was overlooked.

    http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2009/12/29/am-i-my-brother-keeper-when-it-comes-to-debt/

  31. March 12, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Every woman likes of Burberry bags , if you have not it , then quickly have it .you can enter my web :http://www.burberryukbags.org