From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Is the WSFA journal eligable for fanzine Hugo?
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:23:16 -0500
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 1:01 AM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Is the WSFA journal eligable for fanzine Hugo?

[...]
>
> I do have one nitpick, however:  Ted says "To be competitive for a
> Hugo, a fanzine needs a *minimum* of 300 circulation -- worldwide.
> 600 or more is better."  While I only print 42 copies of each issue,
> the median number of hits of the issues that have been online for over
> a year is about 1100.  Some issues have gotten over ten thousand hits.
> That's a fair number of readers.

True, if you equate "hits" with "issues read."  I don't, and I doubt you do
either.  Nor do you know how many hits are from the same person making a
return visit.

Dave Langford's ANSIBLE is probably the widest-circulated fanzine,
especially when you include its internet readership.  This has insured him
a Fanwriter Hugo for a number of years now, but ANSIBLE itself (a two-page
newszine) has won far less often.  That's because most voters want more
content than a couple of pages of witty newsnotes.

The real question, though, is how many of those who do read the WSFA
JOURNAL online are qualified Hugo voters -- that is, for nomination
purposes, a member of last year's or this year's Worldcon, and, for
final-voting purposes, a member of this year's Worldcon.  Since it costs
close to or around $50 just for a *supporting* (voting-eligible)
membership, to say nothing of what it costs for an actual membership, few
fans will join a Worldcon just to nominate and/or vote for the Hugo Awards.
(But don't get me started on the outrageous costs of Worldcon membership
fees.  The Worldcon has become a genuine money-making racket, its fees
*far* in excess of what is needed.)

--Ted White