That's because there aren't any ~~ lol. No, there's a handfull and a handfull of one hit wonders, but if your looking for as many as there are now (or were in 2005 and the 'glory years') there simply aren't. The hobby boomed from hundreds to thousands in 2003-2007 or so. also with the advent of 'Iron Chef' or 'Internet Chef' or w/e quite a few more videos appeared from quality editors. It's quite remarkable to know what we can really do if we're pushed.I don't know many of the ones before 2003
Hall of Fame?
-
Knowname
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 5:49 pm
- Status: Indubitably
- Location: Sanity, USA (on the edge... very edge)
Re: Hall of Fame?
I don't think we should. we already have 'recomended videos' why do we need 'recomended editors' too? It'd be a waste of time
If you do not think so... you will DIE
-
Infinity Squared
- Mr. Poopy Pants
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:07 pm
- Status: Shutting Down
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Hall of Fame?
You can go from a year by year basis, one new Hall of Famer added every month since the start of the org.
So for 2011, you would pick from people who joined up back in 2001. For 2012, pick from those that joined up in 2002. I know a decade is long (particularly in internet time), but I think the purpose is this is to recognise those that really stood the test of time.
This length of time would also hopefully swerve away from the issue of circle jerking (I mean, seriously, who's still in Caldwell's circle by now). After a long enough time, consensus eventually wins over instead of individual preconceptions of the editor.
I see this as being a more thorough look at who's deserving of it. It can also help with the question panelists and their eligibility. Essentially, if you know you're picking from editors who joined in 2002 for example, then none of your panelists ought to be from that year.
Anyway, I guess it doesn't have to be full decade that we do this. We can have a compressed year thing (e.g. do 2001 and 2002 in the 2011 HOF), but the point of all of this is to provide structure.
So for 2011, you would pick from people who joined up back in 2001. For 2012, pick from those that joined up in 2002. I know a decade is long (particularly in internet time), but I think the purpose is this is to recognise those that really stood the test of time.
This length of time would also hopefully swerve away from the issue of circle jerking (I mean, seriously, who's still in Caldwell's circle by now). After a long enough time, consensus eventually wins over instead of individual preconceptions of the editor.
I see this as being a more thorough look at who's deserving of it. It can also help with the question panelists and their eligibility. Essentially, if you know you're picking from editors who joined in 2002 for example, then none of your panelists ought to be from that year.
Anyway, I guess it doesn't have to be full decade that we do this. We can have a compressed year thing (e.g. do 2001 and 2002 in the 2011 HOF), but the point of all of this is to provide structure.
