Clarkesworld Jaunary 2012 stats

That was interesting. I'm a little disturbed about a database containing information from all authors who've submitted since 2008. Editors are supposed to forget my undesirable stories after they send my form reject. I liked the idea that they only remember authors/stories when they are awesome.

That was interesting. I'm a little disturbed about a database containing information from all authors who've submitted since 2008. Editors are supposed to forget my undesirable stories after they send my form reject. I liked the idea that they only remember authors/stories when they are awesome.

Simple solution: only write awesome stories!

That was interesting. I'm a little disturbed about a database containing information from all authors who've submitted since 2008. Editors are supposed to forget my undesirable stories after they send my form reject. I liked the idea that they only remember authors/stories when they are awesome.

Simple solution: only write awesome stories!

I try! But, you know how it is. If you're learning about craft at a decent rate, the things you wrote last year/decade/lifetime, just aren't as shiny as they seemed when you first finished them.

So, that means I have a better chance of getting accepted if my name was Michelle? -_-;

So, that means I have a better chance of getting accepted if my name was Michelle? -_-;

Publish with your first initials if you really think there's a gender bias.

Maybe, just maybe, they buy the best stories, and the gender statistics are merely incidental. Because the reality is that . . .

Near-miss stories account for just a bit below 5% of all submissions since September 2008. 43% of them have gone to women.

. . . 57% of the top 5% of stories are written by people with male-gendered bylines.

So, that means I have a better chance of getting accepted if my name was Michelle? -_-;

Publish with your first initials if you really think there's a gender bias.

Maybe, just maybe, they buy the best stories, and the gender statistics are merely incidental. Because the reality is that . . .

Near-miss stories account for just a bit below 5% of all submissions since September 2008. 43% of them have gone to women.

. . . 57% of the top 5% of stories are written by people with male-gendered bylines.

And if we want to look at published (winning) stories for V27 of WOTF...women comprised 12% of those stories.

I was poking fun at the fact they have only accepted stories from women, not implying a gender bias.

I was poking fun at the fact they have only accepted stories from women, not implying a gender bias.

=) Yeah. I thought it was pretty funny, too. At first, though, I thought it was for the entire YEAR. I felt a little better when I realized it was only for the month of January. Still, that's a lot of submissions for one month!

Still, that's a lot of submissions for one month!

I was expecting it to be more.

At 600 to 800 submissions in a month for Clarksworld, it makes the 1000 submissions a quarter for WOTF seem a bit low since that number accumulated in a three month submission period. Of course Clarksworld submissions aren't limited to new authors only, so that opens them up to a more per month. Still, its humbling to see how many stories yours has to compete with.

Still, its humbling to see how many stories yours has to compete with.

Especially considering only 24 slots per YEAR are open to the slush pile. (The other 12 stories are solicited.) But hey -- that's DOUBLE what CW was accepting a year ago!

(edited to correct 8 to 12; for some reason, when talking Clarkesworld (and only when talking Clarkesworld), my brain defaults to 8 months in a year. Sigh.)

Still, its humbling to see how many stories yours has to compete with.

Especially considering only 24 slots per YEAR are open to the slush pile. (The other 8 stories are solicited.) But hey -- that's DOUBLE what CW was accepting a year ago!

Two stories a month out of c.700 makes it about a 1 in 350 chance - which is about the same as winning WOTF.

Two stories a month out of c.700 makes it about a 1 in 350 chance - which is about the same as winning WOTF.

I try to focus on this aspect of that bit of math: there are a whole lot of awesome stories that HAVE to be rejected. My story could well be one of them. Rejection doesn't mean a story's bad.

(Though that hasn't prevented my wearing devil-horns and gnashing grumble-teeth and feeling like I. M. A. Lousie Riter since Lightspeed and CW both rejected my most recent submission. Sigh.)

Two stories a month out of c.700 makes it about a 1 in 350 chance - which is about the same as winning WOTF.

At least you can submit to Clarkesworld with a much greater frequency.

Two stories a month out of c.700 makes it about a 1 in 350 chance - which is about the same as winning WOTF.

At least you can submit to Clarkesworld with a much greater frequency.

Yes, thankfully you can; so I'm going to pass all my stories through Clarkesworld first.

On the other hand, that's one of the things that make WOTF so special.

I respectfully submit the following...

In a lottery, your odds are 1 / N, where N is the number of entries.

In this contest -- and in a market -- your odds are a function of your awesome: your skill, your practice, your passion, your creativity, your knowledge, and your study. They are NOT 1 / N.

Good point, Martin. If everyone wrote an equally competent and compelling story and followed the guidelines to the letter, it might get a tiny bit closer to pure mathematical odds, but as any slush reader will tell you, a hefty chunk of any slush pile is from folks who clearly have no idea what the magazine or contest is looking for (including word limits, genre, subject matter, etc.).

So right off the bat you can probably cut a given pile in thirds and toss out the bottom third for such reasons. And you haven't even gotten to actual formatting yet, let alone the ability to stack words into a sentence that won't collapse under its own ponderous and ill-distributed weight. In my really rough math, that eliminates at least another 3rd of the pile.

Assuming you were not in one of the two mass purgings, you're really only competing against the rest of the folks who are serious enough about what they are doing to do their homework (that's what guidelines are for, not to mention reading the magazines you want to be in) and really work at their craft. Then, when all other things are more or less equal, it might just come down to who has the better story to tell. Or story length. Or the specific subject matter. Or the tone. Not that it is ever that simple.

I respectfully submit the following...

In a lottery, your odds are 1 / N, where N is the number of entries.

In this contest -- and in a market -- your odds are a function of your awesome: your skill, your practice, your passion, your creativity, your knowledge, and your study. They are NOT 1 / N.

Well, Martin, you certainly have a point there, but it's not the whole story.
Your odds are a function of a) your awesome, b) all the other contestants awesome, c) the editors' general likes & dislikes with a reference to your theme/style/etc.
We can assume that (c) is random and unpredictable (OK, if you've done research and you know the editors' likes and dislikes you have an advantage, but for simplicity's sake I'll include this in your awsome)--let's call it R and (a) is a constant (you improve in time, but at a particular moment in time we could call it a constant)--let's call it A. (b), however, is a direct function of how many people contest (theoretically it may happen that one contest might attract much better writers than another one, but let's say that the actual worth of writers submitting to top contests/markets is roughly equal), so we could say that it is C (another constant) over N (the number of contestants per winning spot - i.e. 50 contestants for 1 winner = 200 contestants for 4 winners).
So, oversimplifying, you can say that your odds are R*A*C / N. So all in all, it is a function of 1 / N.

This was my actual point, anyway. I don't really mean that everyone has a 1 / N chances to win WOTF or be published in Clarkesworld, rather that the chances of succeeding in either are roughly equal.

So right off the bat you can probably cut a given pile in thirds and toss out the bottom third for such reasons. And you haven't even gotten to actual formatting yet, let alone the ability to stack words into a sentence that won't collapse under its own ponderous and ill-distributed weight. In my really rough math, that eliminates at least another 3rd of the pile.

So only you're only up against 266 competent entries per month?

That doesn't make me feel better.

So only you're only up against 266 competent entries per month?

That doesn't make me feel better.

Ha, ha! Yeah, I know. But as they say, every little bit helps. Imagine if all 1000 were just as skilled, talented and careful as we are. Sheesh!

By the way, your crit. is coming soon. I have a couple things to knock out today (like reapplying for my job) and then I'll get it finished and back to you. Thanks for your thoughts on mine!

I have a couple things to knock out today (like reapplying for my job) and then I'll get it finished and back to you.

Ba! You need to learn to prioritize what's most important. Do you REALLY need a job? Do I have plenty of time to review your crit before the deadline?

Think about it.

[/sarcasm]

Ba! You need to learn to prioritize what's most important. Do you REALLY need a job? Do I have plenty of time to review your crit before the deadline?

Think about it.

[/sarcasm]

Don't tempt me!

This semester is the first where it is really getting hard for me to discern whether my writing is interfering with my job or if it is the other way around. If I think too hard on it, I might just haul the family off to our retreat in the woods and Laura Ingalls Wilder it for a year or two. Oh wait, I need at least a reliable source of electricity first--unless I can devise a stationary bike that will run a laptop (then I'd be the skinniest writer ever).

Oh wait, I need at least a reliable source of electricity first--unless I can devise a stationary bike that will run a laptop (then I'd be the skinniest writer ever).

HA! That would be AWESOME. Let me know if you ever invent that.

Thanks for posting this - it was kind of fun for me because I am included in these stats!