In response to meager voter participation — and after much discussion (almost five minutes worth) — the writers decided to modify the process of selecting titles for each round of the challenge. Rather than asking readers to vote for a title, we’ll take turns selecting titles.

While I know — and appreciate — that a few regular readers consistently vote, the fact is that I have to publish reminders and ride herd on the process, and the results are still less than hoped for.

Let’s face it . . . I’m just not good at engaging readers. Other than, of course, some long-term readers, and even there, there are fewer old-timers hanging around the place than there used to be. New readers? Not so much.

Please, don’t take this as me complaining. Life is complicated and, especially these days, very dynamic, often not in good ways.

Really, it’s all I can do to remain loyal to the blog, and it’s my blog.

It’s already a struggle getting people to vote for the actual stories each round (BTW, for the current round, you can do that HERE). I don’t need to add pile another obligation on my readers or tax my time more than it is.

The voting to choose the Round 4 title was supposed to end today at noon . . . […]

The Title Writing Prompt Challenge has evolved.

Meaning, like WordPress, I changed the rules on the fly.

I originally described in THIS post that we’d have readers suggest ten titles, then have a three-day voting period, and then we’ll each write a story with our interpretation of the title that receives the most votes. Then, I changed the rules by removing the reader’s inputs and going with randomly-generated titles (HERE).

Then, I changed the rules again. Because only a few titles get votes, and because I hate wasting titles, I reduced the number of available titles to five (5) plus a bonus title from the previous round.

The good news is that — hopefully — they’re higher quality titles, curated by yours truly.

But wait! . . . there’s more.

The Title Writing Prompt Challenge is evolving.

Meaning, I’m again taking a page from WordPress and changing the rules on the fly.

I originally described in THIS post that we’d have readers suggest ten titles, then have a three-day voting period, and then we’ll each write a story with our interpretation of the title that receives the most votes. Then, I changed the rules by removing the reader’s inputs and going with randomly-generated titles (HERE).

And now, I’m changing the rules again. Because only a few titles get votes, and because I hate wasting titles, I’m reducing the number of available titles to five (5).

The good news is that they will be higher quality titles, curated by yours truly.

But wait! . . . there’s more.

The Title Writing Prompt Challenge is evolving.

Meaning, I’m taking a page from WordPress and changing the rules on the fly.

I originally described in THIS post that we’d have readers suggest ten titles, then have a three-day voting period, and then we’ll each write a story with our interpretation of the title that receives the most votes.

One of the things I should have foreseen — but didn’t — is that readers voted for their suggestions (or the suggestions of their friends). Having readers suggest titles was meant to encourage participation, but the voting round saw an example of how objectivity can be difficult to practice.

Understand, I’m not faulting anyone. After all, I’m the first to admit I like my stuff more than other people’s stuff. But, while me liking what I write affects no one, when people have a stake — even a small stake — in the proceedings, it skews the voting process.

I used to see it in photo and writing contests that relied on popular votes as opposed to judges (not that judges are all that objective). While I used to encourage people to vote for what they liked best, I saw other contestants ask their readers and followers to vote for their offerings. Nothing wrong with that, but then it’s no longer merit; it’s a popularity contest (how we got the Kardashians).

Truthfully, I see a bit of that when people vote for stories for our challenges. Meaning, objectivity is difficult because our preferences are a combination of what we like, what we are familiar with, and perceived connections with what is offered.

For example, if asked to vote between Yellowstone NP and Glacier NP, I’m going with Yellowstone because I’ve never been to Glacier. If asked to vote between Yellowstone NP and Bryce Canyon NP, I’m still going with Yellowstone because, while I like red rocks, I like seeing animals more than I like red rocks. And so it goes.

What do all this mean? Well, let me tell you.