I was recently shown a list of the nominees and winner for the 1980 Hugo and also the Nebula. Although they agreed on the best of the year (Geo. R.R. Martin's "Sandkings"), they only agreed on one other in the top 6.

I find I feel happier when the Hugos and Nebulas don't agree. The most charitable interpretation I can give this is that I get more different stories when the collections are put out. I remember around this time, it seemed to me that they were starting to agree more often than not. Looking broadly, at this time the also agreed on best novel (Clarke's _Fountains of Paradise_ and on three other nominations) and novella (Barry B. Longyear's "Enemy Mine" and one other nomination), but not best short story, although each agreed the other's was worthy of nomination, and that Orson Scott Card's "Unaccompanied Sonata" was the second best.

I should probably check adjacent years to see if I can establish a trend line. But I can just leap forward anyway to see what it looks like if continued unabated. Taking 19-year increments, in 1999 find no agreement on best, and only one or two on what is even worthy of consideration, across the board. By 2018 we're back to agreement on three out of the four categories, novel, novella, and short story. Aside from the winner, the lists of nominees share only one or two similarities, does this suggest the best looks that way coming at it from two different ways?

I may look further into this.
You have been warned.

--
-Jack

I'd be interested in a year by year comparison.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

James Nicoll wrote:
> I'd be interested in a year by year comparison.

Yardwork today, maybe this weekend.
I've only looked into it a little, but enough to have seen trouble.
(besides, if I put off yardwork today, *it* will take up the weekend!)

--
-Jack

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-4, Jack Bohn wrote:
> James Nicoll wrote:
> > I'd be interested in a year by year comparison.
> Yardwork today, maybe this weekend.
> I've only looked into it a little, but enough to have seen trouble.

It looks like a simple table to make, a single-digit number for the common nominees[1], and a binary flag for the winner being the same. A header:
"YEAR Nl Na Nt SS Cummulative"
should keep everything spaced even if you're using a proportional font.

OK, trouble the first year. The Nebulas come out with the full panapoly of categories, but the Hugos have simple "novel" and "short story" with -as befits their amateur status- a blithe disregard of word counts or column-inches or whatever. Also, they went for a tie, esteeming Zelazny's _This Immortal_ as much as _Dune_[2]. For the first, I'll put data into the fields as the Nebulas have them. For the second, I'm gonna hope they don't both tie to the same two titles (does the Nebula do ties? aren't the physical Nebula awards more expensive? they are famously more fragile.) If they do, I'll learn the learn the code for the dagger symbol, or just use the exclamation mark.

Ok, trouble the second year, as the Nebulas nominate _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, which the Hugos had nominated the year before, and nominated again this year. The report will go in the later year, because that's when "the Hugo AND Nebula" goes into effect. A few short stories do span the years..

One final note on the formatting: the main four columns are in the order nominees/winners, which seems to make sense (it's chronological, anyway). The cummulative similarities will also be in that order, as I figure the type of person basing an impression on just the winners is also the type to want an executive summary just running down the last figure on the right-hand side. However, it is quite possible that the total of common nominees in all categories will sometimes reach double digits. If that last number is bouncing around on a ragged right-hand margin, I apologize.

*DISCLAIMER*
I have no idea if I have done any of this right at all. If anyone has any questions or corrections for any entry, I will certainly look into it. If anyone wants to try to do it properly, I will be happy to spot-check your work.

YEAR Nl Na Nt SS Cummulative
1966 1* 0 1 1* 3 2
1967 3 2* 4 3 12 1
1968 4 3 2* 1 10 1
1969 3 4 3 1 11 0
1970 4* 4 2* 2 12 2
1971 3* 3* 2* 0 8 3
1972 2 0 2* 0 4 1
1973 4* 4 4* 3 15 2
1974 4* 4 3 3 14 1
1975 2* 2 0 1 5 1
1976 5* 2* 1 4* 12 3
1977 3 3 2* 2 10 1
1978 1* 2* 2 2 7 2
1979 3* 2* 2 2 9 2
1980 4* 1* 2* 3 10 3
1981 4 2 2 1* 9 1
1982 2 3* 3* 2 10 2
1983 3 3 2* 0 8 1
1984 2* 1 5* 3 11 2
1985 3* 1* 2* 2 8 3
1986 3* 4 5 3 15 1
1987 2* 3 3 4* 12 2
1988 3 2 4 5 14 0
1989 4 5* 4* 1 14 2
1990 2 4* 3 4 13 1
1991 1 3* 4 1* 9 2
1992 3 3* 0 2 8 1
1993 3 2 2 3* 10 1
1994 1 3 2* 1 7 1
1995 3 2* 3* 3 11 2
1996 1 1 2 1 5 0
1997 2 4 1 1 8 0
1998 2 4 3 2 11 0
1999 2* 2 2 1 7 1
2000 1 2 1 2 6 0
2001 3 1 3 2 9 0
2002 1 5* 1 2 9 1
2003 3* 2 3* 2 10 2
2004 0 3* 1 1 5 1
2005 1* 4 1 1 7 1
2006 1 2 2* 1 6 1
2007 0 3 1* 0 4 1
2008 1* 2 1* 0 4 2
2009 2 1 2 1 6 0
2010 3 3 3 2 11 0
2011 3! 3 3 1 10 2
2012 2* 4* 3 3* 12 3
2013 2 3 1 1 7 0
2014 1* 2 1 2 6 1
2015 3 0 0 0 3 0
2016 2 1* 1 1 5 1
2017 3 3* 1 3* 10 2
2018 2* 4* 3 4* 13 3
2019 3* 4 2 3 13 1
2020 3 4* 2 3 12 1
2021 4* 2 3* 3 12 2
2022 2 3 3 3* 11 1

Growing agreement into the '70s (if there is one) appears to be the SFWA catching up with fans on this "New Wave" thing. I had always had the impression the Nebula was trying to be more literary, with the Hugos willing to nominate a simple adventure story because we like what we like.

For 1977, Ursula K. LeGuin withdrew "The Diary of the Rose" from Nebula consideration, but not from the Hugos. What does that mean? Did the SFWA do something wrong? Or did they do something right, in having quick connections between authors and their various committees while the Worldcon committee did not get a memo to withdraw the story? Was there a reason she was down on that story? Will someone, reading the number of common nominees for this year know what it means and feel old wounds reopening? After much debate, I've decided the fact exists, I will report it, and treat any later withdrawals the same way. (Robert Silverberg had withdrawn a coupla stories in a coupla previous years, but I judged that as merely strategic; he had another competitor in the same category, besides they didn't affect The Count..) Later there will be disqualifications nominated in the wrong year, I will appreciate the sentiment.

2011! It happened! A tie in both awards! And they only agreed on one other novel!

I don't know about doing a trend analysis: with the numbers only ranging from 0 to 5, I think we'd just get a jumpy graph.

Across the categories, I would guess from The Rule of the Numerous Small that there are more novellas than novels, more novelettes than either and the most short stories. Even reducing them by the Sturgeon-General's mandated 90%, two samples of 5 each[3] would have a chance to have the same entries, although less of a chance the larger the field. There are fewer common nominees, and fewer snagging of both awards as the length decreases and number of entrants increases, but not to any great extent. Showing, I guess, that something other than random selection was in effect.

[1] "Common nominee" has no linguistic relation to "co-monomona," which is someone who sings along when hearing:
Monomona
Do dooo do do-do
Monomona
Do do do do
Monomona
Do doo do do-do do do do-do do do-do-do-do

[2] Well, they're not wrong. I've been collecting for a list of historical competitors where later circumstances have caused one to fall into relatively more complete obscurity. Superman/Captain Marvel, Mickey Mouse/Popeye, Jack Benny/Fred Allen.

[3] There was a wide variation in the number of nominees. I had a thought to list the number of nominees, either total, or separated for each award, so one could tell if 4 common nominees was one completely copying the other's homework, or just a chance occurrence among dozens, but I decided it would just be visual clutter on the table.

--
-Jack

Thank you for doing this.

In article <08b6c224-cc47-4a42-95cb-0719f16c88c7n@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-4, Jack Bohn wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>> > I'd be interested in a year by year comparison.
>> Yardwork today, maybe this weekend.
>> I've only looked into it a little, but enough to have seen trouble.
>
>It looks like a simple table to make, a single-digit number for
>the common nominees[1], and a binary flag for the winner being
>the same. A header:
>"YEAR Nl Na Nt SS Cummulative"
>should keep everything spaced even if you're using a proportional font.
>
>OK, trouble the first year. The Nebulas come out with the full
>panapoly of categories, but the Hugos have simple "novel" and
>"short story" with -as befits their amateur status- a blithe
>disregard of word counts or column-inches or whatever. Also,
>they went for a tie, esteeming Zelazny's _This Immortal_ as much
>as _Dune_[2]. For the first, I'll put data into the fields as
>the Nebulas have them. For the second, I'm gonna hope they don't
>both tie to the same two titles (does the Nebula do ties? aren't
>the physical Nebula awards more expensive? they are famously more
>fragile.) If they do, I'll learn the learn the code for the
>dagger symbol, or just use the exclamation mark.
>
>Ok, trouble the second year, as the Nebulas nominate _The Moon is
>a Harsh Mistress_, which the Hugos had nominated the year before,
>and nominated again this year. The report will go in the later
>year, because that's when "the Hugo AND Nebula" goes into effect.
>A few short stories do span the years.
>
>One final note on the formatting: the main four columns are in
>the order nominees/winners, which seems to make sense (it's
>chronological, anyway). The cummulative similarities will also
>be in that order, as I figure the type of person basing an
>impression on just the winners is also the type to want an
>executive summary just running down the last figure on the
>right-hand side. However, it is quite possible that the total of
>common nominees in all categories will sometimes reach double
>digits. If that last number is bouncing around on a ragged
>right-hand margin, I apologize.
>
>*DISCLAIMER*
>I have no idea if I have done any of this right at all. If
>anyone has any questions or corrections for any entry, I will
>certainly look into it. If anyone wants to try to do it
>properly, I will be happy to spot-check your work.
>
>
>YEAR Nl Na Nt SS Cummulative
>1966 1* 0 1 1* 3 2
>1967 3 2* 4 3 12 1
>1968 4 3 2* 1 10 1
>1969 3 4 3 1 11 0
>1970 4* 4 2* 2 12 2
>1971 3* 3* 2* 0 8 3
>1972 2 0 2* 0 4 1
>1973 4* 4 4* 3 15 2
>1974 4* 4 3 3 14 1
>1975 2* 2 0 1 5 1
>1976 5* 2* 1 4* 12 3
>1977 3 3 2* 2 10 1
>1978 1* 2* 2 2 7 2
>1979 3* 2* 2 2 9 2
>1980 4* 1* 2* 3 10 3
>1981 4 2 2 1* 9 1
>1982 2 3* 3* 2 10 2
>1983 3 3 2* 0 8 1
>1984 2* 1 5* 3 11 2
>1985 3* 1* 2* 2 8 3
>1986 3* 4 5 3 15 1
>1987 2* 3 3 4* 12 2
>1988 3 2 4 5 14 0
>1989 4 5* 4* 1 14 2
>1990 2 4* 3 4 13 1
>1991 1 3* 4 1* 9 2
>1992 3 3* 0 2 8 1
>1993 3 2 2 3* 10 1
>1994 1 3 2* 1 7 1
>1995 3 2* 3* 3 11 2
>1996 1 1 2 1 5 0
>1997 2 4 1 1 8 0
>1998 2 4 3 2 11 0
>1999 2* 2 2 1 7 1
>2000 1 2 1 2 6 0
>2001 3 1 3 2 9 0
>2002 1 5* 1 2 9 1
>2003 3* 2 3* 2 10 2
>2004 0 3* 1 1 5 1
>2005 1* 4 1 1 7 1
>2006 1 2 2* 1 6 1
>2007 0 3 1* 0 4 1
>2008 1* 2 1* 0 4 2
>2009 2 1 2 1 6 0
>2010 3 3 3 2 11 0
>2011 3! 3 3 1 10 2
>2012 2* 4* 3 3* 12 3
>2013 2 3 1 1 7 0
>2014 1* 2 1 2 6 1
>2015 3 0 0 0 3 0
>2016 2 1* 1 1 5 1
>2017 3 3* 1 3* 10 2
>2018 2* 4* 3 4* 13 3
>2019 3* 4 2 3 13 1
>2020 3 4* 2 3 12 1
>2021 4* 2 3* 3 12 2
>2022 2 3 3 3* 11 1
>
>Growing agreement into the '70s (if there is one) appears to be
>the SFWA catching up with fans on this "New Wave" thing. I had
>always had the impression the Nebula was trying to be more
>literary, with the Hugos willing to nominate a simple adventure
>story because we like what we like.
>
>For 1977, Ursula K. LeGuin withdrew "The Diary of the Rose" from
>Nebula consideration, but not from the Hugos. What does that
>mean? Did the SFWA do something wrong? Or did they do something
>right, in having quick connections between authors and their
>various committees while the Worldcon committee did not get a
>memo to withdraw the story? Was there a reason she was down on
>that story? Will someone, reading the number of common nominees
>for this year know what it means and feel old wounds reopening?
>After much debate, I've decided the fact exists, I will report
>it, and treat any later withdrawals the same way. (Robert
>Silverberg had withdrawn a coupla stories in a coupla previous
>years, but I judged that as merely strategic; he had another
>competitor in the same category, besides they didn't affect The
>Count.) Later there will be disqualifications nominated in the
>wrong year, I will appreciate the sentiment.
>
>2011! It happened! A tie in both awards! And they only agreed
>on one other novel!
>
>I don't know about doing a trend analysis: with the numbers only
>ranging from 0 to 5, I think we'd just get a jumpy graph.
>
>Across the categories, I would guess from The Rule of the
>Numerous Small that there are more novellas than novels, more
>novelettes than either and the most short stories. Even reducing
>them by the Sturgeon-General's mandated 90%, two samples of 5
>each[3] would have a chance to have the same entries, although
>less of a chance the larger the field. There are fewer common
>nominees, and fewer snagging of both awards as the length
>decreases and number of entrants increases, but not to any great
>extent. Showing, I guess, that something other than random
>selection was in effect.
>
>
>[1] "Common nominee" has no linguistic relation to "co-monomona,"
>which is someone who sings along when hearing:
> Monomona
> Do dooo do do-do
> Monomona
> Do do do do
> Monomona
> Do doo do do-do do do do-do do do-do-do-do
>
>[2] Well, they're not wrong. I've been collecting for a list of
>historical competitors where later circumstances have caused one
>to fall into relatively more complete obscurity.
>Superman/Captain Marvel, Mickey Mouse/Popeye, Jack Benny/Fred
>Allen.
>
>[3] There was a wide variation in the number of nominees. I had
>a thought to list the number of nominees, either total, or
>separated for each award, so one could tell if 4 common nominees
>was one completely copying the other's homework, or just a chance
>occurrence among dozens, but I decided it would just be visual
>clutter on the table.
>
>
>--
>-Jack

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll