1abysswalker
What do we think about this practice?
I noticed at least one proposal links to a custom digital mock-up image. I don't think this was explicitly against any rules, and the image did help me understand where the designer was coming from. But...
It does seem like perhaps we want to keep things to only simple textual description at the first stage, to both level the playing field and not raise the bar too high at what should probably still be considered a brainstorming type exercise?
Yes, we can always vote against it, but pointing at external custom resources that one personally creates seems kind of against the spirit of the word limit. And where does it end? Would it be okay to include a URL that points to a much longer textual description as well?
(Tone is difficult to convey online, so I want to clarify that I don't think this was any particularly egregious violation, just that we might want to clarify the intent for the next round. I don't yet personally have a position strong enough to suggest something to vote on, but I do think it warrants discussion.)
I noticed at least one proposal links to a custom digital mock-up image. I don't think this was explicitly against any rules, and the image did help me understand where the designer was coming from. But...
It does seem like perhaps we want to keep things to only simple textual description at the first stage, to both level the playing field and not raise the bar too high at what should probably still be considered a brainstorming type exercise?
Yes, we can always vote against it, but pointing at external custom resources that one personally creates seems kind of against the spirit of the word limit. And where does it end? Would it be okay to include a URL that points to a much longer textual description as well?
(Tone is difficult to convey online, so I want to clarify that I don't think this was any particularly egregious violation, just that we might want to clarify the intent for the next round. I don't yet personally have a position strong enough to suggest something to vote on, but I do think it warrants discussion.)
2Tuna_Melon
>1 abysswalker: I noticed that too (I don't have my notes handy, but I recall three instances of urls). My first gut reaction was to think: clever.
My second thought: is our 3rd Edition going to have a custom website for each Round 1 proposal?
What's the saying?: A picture is worth a thousand words.
As an aside, I also appreciated seeing four-adjacent-hyphenated-words in one proposal if memory serves. That only counts as one word, right? Right?
I think these are just ways for people to show some creativity. I don't think I have anything against any of these tactics. If anything irked me too bad, I could always vote "no" so I think it's a matter where whatever isn't forbidden is permissible... and the consensus will help everything balance out.
Some of the cleverness got me grinning, so no complaints.
My second thought: is our 3rd Edition going to have a custom website for each Round 1 proposal?
What's the saying?: A picture is worth a thousand words.
As an aside, I also appreciated seeing four-adjacent-hyphenated-words in one proposal if memory serves. That only counts as one word, right? Right?
I think these are just ways for people to show some creativity. I don't think I have anything against any of these tactics. If anything irked me too bad, I could always vote "no" so I think it's a matter where whatever isn't forbidden is permissible... and the consensus will help everything balance out.
Some of the cleverness got me grinning, so no complaints.
3NathanOv
>1 abysswalker: I saw the linked text of the work as just one step above “google it to read more,” and the linked page samples as more proof that the work was truly as far along as the proposal claimed, but both proposals could’ve probably been taken at their word without those links.
That said, if you’re voting just based on the title, then the body of the proposal doesn’t really matter, and likewise you can vote just based on the body without worrying about anything else referenced or directly linked to…
That said, if you’re voting just based on the title, then the body of the proposal doesn’t really matter, and likewise you can vote just based on the body without worrying about anything else referenced or directly linked to…
4Glacierman
Referencing the Call for Proposals:
Proposals will consist simply of a short description, e.g. name of work & author (max. ~10 words), and a long description (max. 200 words). The long description may include argumentation in favor of the proposal.
Harking back to my own initial proposal for Sinuhe, most of the verbiage was a defense of why it should be published, with three lines (two sentences) given over to a brief design suggestion, but we had long descriptions all over the place, some terse to the point of exasperation, others giving details of design, binding, etc.
My personal feeling is that the initial proposal should be a sales pitch and save the detailed design specs for round two (if it makes it that far), but there aren't any "rules" to the contrary.
There was at least one proposal that linked to an outside source. I don't perceive outside links like >1 abysswalker: cites above as problem, just a bit too soon maybe.
Proposals will consist simply of a short description, e.g. name of work & author (max. ~10 words), and a long description (max. 200 words). The long description may include argumentation in favor of the proposal.
Harking back to my own initial proposal for Sinuhe, most of the verbiage was a defense of why it should be published, with three lines (two sentences) given over to a brief design suggestion, but we had long descriptions all over the place, some terse to the point of exasperation, others giving details of design, binding, etc.
My personal feeling is that the initial proposal should be a sales pitch and save the detailed design specs for round two (if it makes it that far), but there aren't any "rules" to the contrary.
There was at least one proposal that linked to an outside source. I don't perceive outside links like >1 abysswalker: cites above as problem, just a bit too soon maybe.
5abysswalker
>3 NathanOv: the linked text of the work to be reproduced seems different to me, as that is not the design/curatorial vision of the proposer.
In contrast, a digital mock-up of a cover is part of the design vision.
(Maybe the useful guiding principle is original work versus reference work/citation?)
Is anyone voting just based on the title? I am certainly considering more than the title most of the time.
In contrast, a digital mock-up of a cover is part of the design vision.
(Maybe the useful guiding principle is original work versus reference work/citation?)
Is anyone voting just based on the title? I am certainly considering more than the title most of the time.
6pcdude
I am one of the proposers that included a URL. The primary reason for doing so was to combat the strong push to avoid any proposal under copyright. I wanted to prove that the holder of the copywriter had the work freely available to everyone and therefore securing the right to publish it should be fairly trivial.
I find the discussions around the proposals quite interesting. The proposals and the discussions around them are all over the place. While i am self interested enough to want my proposal to do well, i am very intrigued to see which ones do.
Also, I am swayed by effort in the proposal stages. I personally did not care about Sinue. I will likely donate the book at some point. However, I was very impressed by the passion Glacierman had about it and was willing to support both the concept of the press and that passion project to completion.
Even with the new structure for the press, the proposer still has a fairly heavy lift. If they can’t put much effort at the simplest and easiest stage, why would we think they will be energetic and resilient enough to complete the project?
I find the discussions around the proposals quite interesting. The proposals and the discussions around them are all over the place. While i am self interested enough to want my proposal to do well, i am very intrigued to see which ones do.
Also, I am swayed by effort in the proposal stages. I personally did not care about Sinue. I will likely donate the book at some point. However, I was very impressed by the passion Glacierman had about it and was willing to support both the concept of the press and that passion project to completion.
Even with the new structure for the press, the proposer still has a fairly heavy lift. If they can’t put much effort at the simplest and easiest stage, why would we think they will be energetic and resilient enough to complete the project?
7koszakedv
I really don't care how the text is formulated or by whom, human, AI or Martian. If I'm familiar with the book I will go with my subjective opinion about it. If it's an unknown one, then I will anyway look it up and read more than one review.
8Shadekeep
I included a source link of the text in question in my proposal simply because one would be highly unlikely to find it on their own. Many of the works proposed exist in forms where folks can find and read it if desired, so I just saw the link as extending that same courtesy. There was no intention on my part to use an external resource to sway votes or pad my proposal.
9elladan0891
>8 Shadekeep: Feel free not to reply if you don't want to reveal your proposal, but if it's the 17th-century one - what an extraordinary, out-of-the-box idea! My hat is off to you!
10Shadekeep
>9 elladan0891: Thanks kindly!
11kermaier
I think that links to external material that simply helps members find info about is totally fine.
External mockups or other augmentation of the proposal itself, however, seems like an end-run around the 200 word limit. I mean, I could write a 1000 word treatment, take a screenshot of it, host the JPEG on a photo sharing website, and embed a link to the image in my proposal submission. Is that OK?
External mockups or other augmentation of the proposal itself, however, seems like an end-run around the 200 word limit. I mean, I could write a 1000 word treatment, take a screenshot of it, host the JPEG on a photo sharing website, and embed a link to the image in my proposal submission. Is that OK?
12NathanOv
>11 kermaier: If I recall correctly, there was a first-round proposal the last time around that referred directly to a much longer and more detailed description of how the work would be done.
I believe that was “The Life of Merlin,” which had been in the works by a LibraryThing member, who was not themselves a publisher, for quite some time. This feels like a similar case.
I believe that was “The Life of Merlin,” which had been in the works by a LibraryThing member, who was not themselves a publisher, for quite some time. This feels like a similar case.
13caszius
Hey - I did the mockup. I’ve been holding off replying because honestly a little discouraged, disappointed, and didn’t want to overreact. I know the discussion is in good faith, but I can’t help but feel like putting in effort to something I was passionate and excited about - with the goal of helping the community make a really incredible book - has only lead to criticism. Between this thread and the AI slop accuser, it’s been a bummer. I thought taking this seriously and trying hard to deliver something high quality would be looked on as great for what we’re trying to do, or at the very least give people clarity on whether they wanted my proposal or not. I half expected the criticism in the forums to be pointed at one sentence proposals that showed little care, yet it seems to have been the reverse. Anyways, I don’t wanna wax on and make a big thing, I know it’s just discussion and it’s a reasonable question. But just discouraged and figured people would want a reply.
14consensuspress
>13 caszius: I, for one, appreciate your enthusiasm and industriousness.
15grifgon
This is what the bylaws state about the proposals:
So any opinion on what a proposal should be is perfectly valid but, ultimately, just a personal opinion. Members can vote based on those opinions, but we really can't say that anything is against the spirit of the exercise. The spirit of the exercise is participation. Everybody who made a proposal (and, remember, doing so was optional!) should be applauded for making the effort. (Even the nincompoop who proposed an edition of the Consensus Press bylaws (me)!)
I agree completely with >13 caszius: that proposals which go above and beyond are a great thing because they "give people clarity on whether they want a proposal or not." To echo PC Dude (!), I personally voted for Caszius' proposal – a work I'd never heard of – in large part because the proposer had so clearly thought the idea through and was obviously passionate about it. (I actually voted for both proposals which included visual mockups.)
If anybody wants a vote on restrictions for future proposals – use of AI, use of links, etc. – let's have it! But in the meantime, literally every member who submitted a proposal gets a firm handshake from me 🤝 and the ones who went above and beyond by including outside resources get a hats off 🎩 as well for the additional effort made.
In the FIRST STAGE, each member may submit one project proposal of under 200 words. The director may cut off any proposal in excess of 200 words.
So any opinion on what a proposal should be is perfectly valid but, ultimately, just a personal opinion. Members can vote based on those opinions, but we really can't say that anything is against the spirit of the exercise. The spirit of the exercise is participation. Everybody who made a proposal (and, remember, doing so was optional!) should be applauded for making the effort. (Even the nincompoop who proposed an edition of the Consensus Press bylaws (me)!)
I agree completely with >13 caszius: that proposals which go above and beyond are a great thing because they "give people clarity on whether they want a proposal or not." To echo PC Dude (!), I personally voted for Caszius' proposal – a work I'd never heard of – in large part because the proposer had so clearly thought the idea through and was obviously passionate about it. (I actually voted for both proposals which included visual mockups.)
If anybody wants a vote on restrictions for future proposals – use of AI, use of links, etc. – let's have it! But in the meantime, literally every member who submitted a proposal gets a firm handshake from me 🤝 and the ones who went above and beyond by including outside resources get a hats off 🎩 as well for the additional effort made.
16Tuna_Melon
>13 caszius: Certainly don't let a few comments get you down.
I think Consensus Press Round 1s would be an elevated experience if most people put mockups together instead of that idea being an outlier.
I recall that there was some griping about the quantity of proposals people needed to read and vote on, definitely for the first edition, but also for this one I think. (I personally enjoy the reading experience and didn't find it burdensome; it did take a little while of dedicating a time slot without interruption to go through all the proposals.) However, if mockups became the norm, if anything, I think that would be well received since it would mean less reading for those who find it inconvenient.
I think most people are probably not equipped to make a mockup as nice. Kudos on your approach.
I think Consensus Press Round 1s would be an elevated experience if most people put mockups together instead of that idea being an outlier.
I recall that there was some griping about the quantity of proposals people needed to read and vote on, definitely for the first edition, but also for this one I think. (I personally enjoy the reading experience and didn't find it burdensome; it did take a little while of dedicating a time slot without interruption to go through all the proposals.) However, if mockups became the norm, if anything, I think that would be well received since it would mean less reading for those who find it inconvenient.
I think most people are probably not equipped to make a mockup as nice. Kudos on your approach.
17Didici
So I personally did the ballot on mobile with a new baby in one arm, and the links weren’t live so I didn’t copy/paste them to look at what was on the other side, but I think it’s totally fine for people to have done mockups or other extended presentation elements.
If a round of proposals ever turns into a For Your Consideration arms race, or it seems like you can’t get a look in if you don’t have graphic design skills then I think revisit, but let’s not overreact to a new thing without seeing a little more about how it plays out.
If a round of proposals ever turns into a For Your Consideration arms race, or it seems like you can’t get a look in if you don’t have graphic design skills then I think revisit, but let’s not overreact to a new thing without seeing a little more about how it plays out.
18Shotcaller
>17 Didici: Hey, congrats on that new baby! (I assume it’s yours and you didn’t just find it somewhere).
19Shadekeep
Advocatus Diaboli here. My personal impression was that the first round was kept to short textual entries in order to keep it manageable for all members to review, and to garner simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down reactions on the basic premise of each. Those which make the cut to the second round are then invited to expand and embellish.
While not trying to discourage the ambition or dampen the enthusiasm of others, one does feel a bit sheepish to have followed the guidelines only to then see them jettisoned. It's like a teacher assigning everyone to write a one-page essay to read out to the class, and then some kids show up with costumes and props and background music. Certainly their initiative and creativity is laudable, but those weren't part of the permissible parameters of the assignment, and those who hewed to the parameters can end up feeling like mugs.
Had I known that mockups and the like would be allowed then I certainly would have indulged. But the by-laws stating that "The director may cut off any proposal in excess of 200 words" sounds sufficiently draconian to quell any thought that such elaborations would be welcomed in the opening salvo.
While not trying to discourage the ambition or dampen the enthusiasm of others, one does feel a bit sheepish to have followed the guidelines only to then see them jettisoned. It's like a teacher assigning everyone to write a one-page essay to read out to the class, and then some kids show up with costumes and props and background music. Certainly their initiative and creativity is laudable, but those weren't part of the permissible parameters of the assignment, and those who hewed to the parameters can end up feeling like mugs.
Had I known that mockups and the like would be allowed then I certainly would have indulged. But the by-laws stating that "The director may cut off any proposal in excess of 200 words" sounds sufficiently draconian to quell any thought that such elaborations would be welcomed in the opening salvo.
20Didici
>18 Shotcaller: Mine he is, and a week old today. Thanks so much. Lucky I had my proposal done in advance or we’d be dealing with my suggestion for the world’s first fine press board book. Woodblock printed copy of The Runaway Bunny maybe.
21caszius
Well this was a pleasant thing to wake up to this morning — thanks for the kind words everyone. Genuinely very cool of you guys.
And I do understand the devil’s advocate / concern take too. Don’t wanna squash any amendments if the group would ever wanna explore.
And I do understand the devil’s advocate / concern take too. Don’t wanna squash any amendments if the group would ever wanna explore.
22abysswalker
>17 Didici: >19 Shadekeep: these both seem like eminently reasonable positions.
Like Shadekeep, I would have included links to mockups probably too, had I known it were an accepted practice.
>21 caszius: I don't mean to be discouraging or to imply that you were trying to get around the rules! As I said in the original post, tone is hard to communicate, and I can totally see how someone could interpret the intent either way. I liked the proposal and voted yes to it, though I think the title on the front board currently gets lost in the marbling and should either be removed or distinguished visually in some way from the marbled swirls. Perhaps using a printed or embossed label? Contrasting colors?
Like Shadekeep, I would have included links to mockups probably too, had I known it were an accepted practice.
>21 caszius: I don't mean to be discouraging or to imply that you were trying to get around the rules! As I said in the original post, tone is hard to communicate, and I can totally see how someone could interpret the intent either way. I liked the proposal and voted yes to it, though I think the title on the front board currently gets lost in the marbling and should either be removed or distinguished visually in some way from the marbled swirls. Perhaps using a printed or embossed label? Contrasting colors?
23caszius
>22 abysswalker: yeah no worries! I went back and forth a lot in the mock, and what I’m betting on is: (1) the exact board marbling we choose probably won’t be as vibrant in real life as it is digitally, and (2) the gold foil will shine/shimmer enough to stand out.
However, my wife definitely agrees with you (she wasn’t a fan, hah), and I actually chose to (just for the mock) outline the gold font in black to try and mitigate this issue for the mock.
But if I make it to the final 5, will def spend more time playing around with it and seeing if others have a POV.
However, my wife definitely agrees with you (she wasn’t a fan, hah), and I actually chose to (just for the mock) outline the gold font in black to try and mitigate this issue for the mock.
But if I make it to the final 5, will def spend more time playing around with it and seeing if others have a POV.
24NathanOv
Well, since the majority of the vote is in I hope this won’t be seen as elaborating too much on my proposal, but I can offer a little explanation as well.
My pages were not prepared specifically for this beyond cutting them into a sample. My main intent with that was to give a taste of the artwork and archival photos that have been developed and curated over the past year-and-half, with being further along in production a key selling point in the proposal. The text I’ve been editing for much longer than that.
I understand not everyone being happy with that since that is not the nature of most Consensus Press titles, and apologize for any appearance of unfairness, though I’d be pleasantly surprised if this title would’ve made the top 5 either way.
I’d felt “The Life of Merlin” from last time around set a good precedent for proposing projects that had already been in the works, and mainly comment now since I’d like to see the by-laws leave some nuance for more proposals like that in the future, even if we clarify “no samples, please.”
My pages were not prepared specifically for this beyond cutting them into a sample. My main intent with that was to give a taste of the artwork and archival photos that have been developed and curated over the past year-and-half, with being further along in production a key selling point in the proposal. The text I’ve been editing for much longer than that.
I understand not everyone being happy with that since that is not the nature of most Consensus Press titles, and apologize for any appearance of unfairness, though I’d be pleasantly surprised if this title would’ve made the top 5 either way.
I’d felt “The Life of Merlin” from last time around set a good precedent for proposing projects that had already been in the works, and mainly comment now since I’d like to see the by-laws leave some nuance for more proposals like that in the future, even if we clarify “no samples, please.”
25kermaier
>12 NathanOv: I didn’t remember that, but that seems to me to violate the spirit of the word limit rule.
>13 caszius: Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be mean or dampen excitement about the proposal process. I was just defending the rules as I understand them.
>15 grifgon: Hard for me to understand why we bothered with a stated word limit at all, if we wanted to encourage extended proposals in round one.
>13 caszius: Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be mean or dampen excitement about the proposal process. I was just defending the rules as I understand them.
>15 grifgon: Hard for me to understand why we bothered with a stated word limit at all, if we wanted to encourage extended proposals in round one.
26kermaier
>13 caszius: Everything else aside: really nice mockup!
27NathanOv
>25 kermaier: Well, isn’t the nature of the word count quite simply just to limit the time required of both the proposer and the voters in the first round?
I want to be clear I don’t mean that at all in defense of my own proposal, as I had not publicly shared much on it prior to this round of voting.
I just think if certain proposals have more external information available that’s not prepared simply as an extension of the proposal, then it makes sense for voters to have access to it to review at their discretion.
I want to be clear I don’t mean that at all in defense of my own proposal, as I had not publicly shared much on it prior to this round of voting.
I just think if certain proposals have more external information available that’s not prepared simply as an extension of the proposal, then it makes sense for voters to have access to it to review at their discretion.
28abysswalker
>27 NathanOv: "if certain proposals have more external information available that’s not prepared simply as an extension of the proposal, then it makes sense for voters to have access to it"
Agreed.
Agreed.
29kermaier
>28 abysswalker: Yes, agreed (I believe I indicated as much in my first comment). Saving the reader some googling would be just fine, in my opinion.
Join to post
