Debbie Sharp, Webmistress
Mesweet's Awards

When I read the question, the word that ran through my head was dictatorship. I shudder at the thought.

Having standardized criteria would take away the freedom of the award givers reason to offer the award to begin with. Uniqueness of an individual's awards would be no more. Awards would become boring because all awards given would be for the same reason.

It is a webmaster's right to offer an award and state what his or her criteria is, because only the webmaster knows for what reason he or she wants to give out the award. I like this freedom and feel that is the way it should remain.

Barbara Tampieri, Webmistress
BTDesign Awards

The criteria page is probably the most important element in an award program. Having detailed criteria is surely a sign that the award program is well structured and the awardmaster is willing to offer the best help to the applicant in order to win the award he deserves.

Since some of the criteria can be found in almost every program, especially as far as disqualifiers are concerned, some unexperienced applicants might think all criteria pages are equal and standardized and that it is not necessary to read them if the applicant site does not contain any disqualifier. This is a big mistake which results as the most common cause of failure in gaining the award.

While every program will surely state there will be no awards for porn or hacking or hate sites, this does not mean all other sites will be awarded. Every award program has a peculiarity, looks for certain characteristics in the sites it awards and all this can be found in the criteria page.

If an applicant reads carefully the criteria he will discover not only if his site is eligible in general, but also if he is eligible for that particular award he is applying for and if he can hope to get the highest offered award.

We can say that a certain criteria standardization is typical of award programs in their early stages. The criteria are usually short, concentrating mostly on disqualifiers and on what the awardmaster does not want to see in general.

When the program grows the criteria are usually more and more detailed, a separate page is set for them, and the information contained is aimed to help the applicant finding out not only what he must not show but what he is expected to display in order to be eligible for the awards.

A detailed criteria page is usually the result of the growing awardmaster's experience in reviewing hundreds of sites and can be described as the collection of all the characteristics which made previous applicants winners.

Don Pressgrove, Webmaster
Riki's Perch Awards (program closed)

Standardized criteria by definition implies that once an award seeker gains the experience to earn any award, he or she would be eligible to win them all. It is the diversity each award site brings to the awards community that provides the inspiration and motivation to win the various awards offered.

Each of the better award sites establish criteria based on their individual definition of "web excellence". As award sites gain experience and sharpen their skills, this is often reflected by updated criteria with the result that their award is a little more difficult to achieve. Normally the popularity and desirability of an award is based upon the difficulty to acquire it.

This sets the stage for the award seeker to improve their skill levels to win the increasingly more difficult awards.

At the same time the award givers criteria is in a constant state of flux as new skills are learned and incorporated into their criteria, award program, and accompanying Web site. The end result is beneficial to the entire Internet global community.

As competition and the desire to win an award is directly reflected in the criteria process, this results in a higher level of "web excellence" not only to win an award, but will also promote improvements in the award seekers web site. The cycle is never ending and everyone benefits through this process.

If awards criteria were standardized the incentive to constantly improve your skill level would be diminished, if not totally eliminated.

Jim Docherty, Webmaster
Red Stag Awards

Award programs represent the same diversity in personal taste, design, content and functionality as the sites they evaluate. Standardized criteria would reduce their value to a question of award graphics.

Award-seekers apply to various programs for a number of different reasons. In that quest is an opportunity to qualify for multiple awards based on the unique criteria that exists for each. In short, many sites facing a single set of rules might be excluded from the process that would otherwise benefit from the currently diverse awards experience.

On a practical level, it is unlikely that any one group could achieve a consensus among the hundreds of serious award-givers to standardize program elements including criteria.

Ian McPherson, Webmaster
Best of the Web for MacOS Award (program closed)

To some degree, there is already an "informal" standardisation of award criteria. Certainly, few people write their own award criteria without considering someone else’s approach, or should. And many award programs use similar terminology, expressions and wording, as it makes great sense to agree on accepted terminology, simply to maximise communication.

"Content," "originality" and "excellence" are the meat and potatoes of the awards community, and I consider these terms in particular to be standards. Other criteria, such as "fast loading" and "no under construction signs," which hark from early studies of the web and the attitudes of early awardmasters, could also be considered criteria standards, as they are still featured in many leading programs years after their initial adoption.

In my case, I studied many different programs, and jotted down lots of notes and observations, which later were incorporated or dropped from my own criteria. I could have left out some of the "standardised criteria," but after mulling it over, I ended up incorporating the standards I agreed with. To be absolutely honest, I now find my own criteria to be around 60% derivative (and therefore standardised) and 40% theme-oriented and original. Check it out. See if you agree?

Criteria, however, whilst it may contain some of the previous informal standards, is vital in describing and defining the real purpose of your Award, and should always contain original thinking. A good example is Médaille d'Or, which contains some standard criteria, yet concentrates (and succeeds) in communicating the web philosophy of the reviewers. This unique criteria, and the quality of the site selections, makes this program one of the best in the world.

Purpose-driven award criteria is one of the reasons we enjoy an increasing variety of award programs. There are awards for art, design, Flash, sci-fi, humour, search engine success, speed, horror, pets and more — there is even an award for award graphics! Whatever people are looking for, no matter what their web experience level, they can build an award program around their chosen topic. With fully standardised award criteria, this variety may not be possible.

There is another important reason why there isn’t standardised criteria for awards, and that is because most awards are non-commercial. If the majority of award programs were run for money, there would be more associations, more committees, more rules, more compromises, more standards — and ultimately — less creativity and variety.

As long as awards criteria is not over-standardised, and people are free to choose the topic or passion that is reflected in their award program, variety is assured. My own program grew out of a passion for the Macintosh computer. When I realised there wasn't a Mac-specific award program listed at Award Sites!, I decided to start one. Since then, I have been continually entertained, amused, moved and amazed by the quality and variety of my "made on a Mac" award winners.

I wouldn't like to see that change too much :)