Introduction
Criterions for the purpose of the discussion which follows are: terms of service (TOS), ethical statements, rule sets, mission statements, codes of conduct, copyright and privacy statements. The preceding is intended to amplify that we merely do not "talk the talk, but walk the talk." If we truly desire to exhibit our beliefs through our actions and interactions with all people. Of mother earth.
Practical Considerations
To practice what we "preach." Is often difficult but certainly within our ability. We merely must refocus on original intent. On a daily basis and be willing and able to accept advice and criticisms.
Following a Leader or By Example
Award program rating groups and individual award programs. Are
different. We should expect differences. Because we encourage
individuality. Or do we?
However there is one glaring flaw. One muted omission which lends
itself. To distortions of excellence. Promotes ambiguity.
Undermines the whole of the award community. Which teeters on the
edge of extension. Never returning to its glory days.
Specifically an omission in disqualifying criteria. For either an
award or a rating group level achievement.
An award program must meet its own criteria. In total, not merely
in part.
Do not take what is stated above at face value. Start with the host
of award rating groups. Do they specifically state that an award
program must meet their own criteria in whole, not merely in part?
Or not be permitted an upgrade, rather a possible downgrade.
After a very careful examination of every AP rating group's
disqualifying criteria. In which you are a member. Ask
yourself!
Why? Or specifically for what reason is this tacit requirement
missing or merely penalized by points.
Start below and then go through every award program rating group
where you are a member.
Start with Award Sites (AS!)
You will find the following: The site must be able to win
its own award.
If AS! will not upgrade because the site can not earn its own
award. Yet another rating group merely deducts points. There is a
vast difference in true excellence. Of the award program.
Award program owners expend. In some reviews an appreciable amount
of time is expended. Other reviews merely look at the first few
pages. Very little time is spent in the review.
End of Story or Just the Beginning?
Then if an award is won. Write a laudation. Send the applicant
their award graphic. End of story. Except months later the
applicant may reapply for an upgrade. After little or no
improvement. Sound familiar?
The above is a typical example of "tunnel vision." When "flash"
words like Twitter, validations, enhanced recognition, "You Tube",
MOODLE, eXlearning and E-Books. Exact condemnation or negativity.
But the preceding are merely tools to rebuild a once vibrant
community of award givers. Who cared more about their applicants.
Than themselves.
Certainly the quote below, has a parallel to the subject at
hand.
[Quote] The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been
baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's
been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But
baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is part of our
past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could
be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely
come [/Quote]. ... James Earl Jones: Field of Dreams.
The American Association of Webmasters-Donna Snyder and Surflocal
Humanitarian Service Award-Trinity Prescott were innovators. Models
of serving their applicants and award winners. Who were placed
first and foremost. Leaving very little time for self indulgence:
like seeking awards or award rating levels for themselves.
The tools these wonderful web mistresses used are legion:
newspaper, television and radio releases. Personal letters, award
plaques, certificates and phone calls.
Copyright: 1986-2010