Hyperspace Fan Writer Network

I don’t know a lot about social network analysis but I do know how to plug numbers into software I don’t entirely understand. So there’s no blistering insights from the following graph, I just thought it looked neat.

This is the data from the previous post converted into a network graph. The thickness of the bar are the proportion of points that re-allocated as a nominee was eliminated. The data is essentially incomplete because EPH stops when the six finalists have been identified. In theory the algorithm could keep going until there was one ‘winner’. So, for example, Cora and Paul don’t have a connection because they were both finalists. I also turned it into an undirected graph because I messed up how I imported the data into Gephi (https://gephi.org/ ) and the arrows were pointing the wrong way round.

The main thing is that it ended up looking pretty, like a faceted gemstone. It also shows that EPH functions in a way that is somehow both competitive but also mutually supportive.

11 thoughts on “Hyperspace Fan Writer Network

  1. “The thickness of the bar are the proportion of points that re-allocated as a nominee was eliminated.”

    Obviously I get this, because every true fan writer knows how to find is way to a bar.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. One of my favorite quotes was from someone talking about some immense job of coding that was being proposed (facetiously perhaps, time has erased details), and concluded “…and we will do these things, not because they are easy, but because we thought they would be easy!”

        Liked by 2 people

  2. *looks at transfers*
    You’re welcome. 🙂

    I would be interested in seeing unreallocated nominations. I might be misreading/misrepresenting the data, but if I understand things correctly, the closer the initial points are to the number of nominations, the more focused that person’s nominators are (at least in terms of sharing nominations with others on the longlist). This also shows up – from the other side of the coin – in how the initial and when-eliminated points differ.
    This would suggest that Elsa and I have very single-minded fans, and all of you in the top 8 have a broader appeal, in the sense you appeal to people who also nominate others.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Looking at the ratio of raw votes to initial points, there are finalist with high percentages (Adam Whitehead 76% ) and non-finalists with low (Aidan Moher 39%)


      1. Adam Whitehead has a lot of very focussed nominators, which is probably why he made the ballot, even though Charles Payseur had more raw nominations, but people who nominated Charles were more likely to also nominate others, most notably Jason Sanford. I also had more raw nominations than Adam, but qualified behind him, because again people who nominated me were also more likely to nominate Cam or Paul or James Davis Nicoll.


Comments are closed.