Back Scrivener in the Gem Awards

It’s been mentioned in passing, but I haven’t seen any one post how to make sure that Scrivener gets a well-deserved Gem Award in the Macworld Software of the Year Awards. So here’s the link to the blog article where you can have your say at it:

You have to register of course, but why not, it’s a good site anyway and should be in your newsfeeds!

And just in case our too busy programmer doesn’t feel like nominating himself, here’s what I said:
GEM of the Year - Scrivener - it says it’s for authors of books, film scripts etc, but it’s the best tool ever invented for compiling complex business reports, research papers etc as well!! Lone programmer of great diligence - and charm - who is trying to write whilst programming an awesome piece of work. Version 1.1 is to appear with Leopard but the current betas are rock solid.

PS I still think it’s too cheap - but don’t restart that debate!

I love Scrivener, but an orchestrated write-in campaign (with a whole bunch of people who have never posted before on Macworld) isn’t necessarily the best way to win the hearts and minds of the other editors at Macworld. (And yes, we do reserve the right to invalidate any votes that we view came as part of a ballot-stuffing campaign.)

-jason, Macworld Editorial Director and guy writing his novel in Scrivener

Hi Jason,

Is it in fact a vote? Or is the purpose of the entries to identify apps that may be worth
considering in more depth? I had assumed, perhaps naively, that we were simply
saying, “Hey, look at this one. It’s really cool. In fact, it does what no other app has
really been able to do yet. It breaks new ground. And it’s worth considering.” If that’s
what the write-ins do, I wouldn’t think of them as ballot box stuffing at all. If, on the
other hand, it really is a vote, then it would be useful to know who is and who is not
enfranchised — and according what criteria.



Yeah, I’d like to know, too. I posted there about Scrivener for App of the Year, then after reading here and elsewhere, realized that it would have a better chance at being Gem.

What’s the best way to get this great app recognized?

I am gob smacked by this and the comments on Macworld’s blog. Here’s my response posted there:
[i]Sorry Phillip but what are you saying:

  • that you don’t want people to identify what’s really important to them?
  • that there’s some vested interest in telling others about YOUR request for nominations?
  • that in some way other people writing in support of an exceptional product negates its value?
  • that by sharing on a developer’s blog my enthusiasm and value judgements that I’ve committed some cardinal sin of blogsphere?
    Come on.
    I hope I haven’t queered Scrivener’s pitch: but that’s one cancelled Macworld subscription from me. [/i]

As I said, sorry if there’s now the appearance of a write in that’s doing more harm than good: perhaps it’s enough that we know that Scrivener is great - just think how much I’ve saved in Macworld subscriptions …

Let me put it another way.

The Scrivener crowd has been heard from. (And in fact, as you might have intuited, there are also several fans of Scrivener within Macworld.) What you risk is the natural response turning into something viewed as artificial.

A series of posts from single-post users on Macworld’s Forums won’t help the product any. It will be viewed as ballot-box-stuffing, as an orchestrated campaign. Our Reader’s Choice Awards nominations are meant to be nominations from members of our community who are interested in sharing with us their ideas for the best products of the year.

Or to put it another way, Grassroots is good and Astroturf is bad.

This is me trying to help you and help Scrivener’s cause. If you want to yell at me again for doing it, well, I think you’ve completely missed my point.


I would just like to say the following:

  1. My sincere thanks to those users who cared about Scrivener enough to want to try and get it nominated for an award.

  2. My sincere thanks to Jason Snell, who recommended Scrivener for reviews in both MacUser and Macworld, and also to Macworld, who gave Scrivener a very favourable review.

  3. I think Macworld now know about Scrivener and that you want it nominated. :slight_smile: Please don’t register at Macworld solely to nominate Scrivener, though, as I believe they are just asking for nominations from regulars.

Please don’t take this as ingratitude - far from it. Really, thank you for caring about Scrivener enough to want to get it a mention.

All the best,

Hm, I feel like I have to respond here because I did register at Macworld to post about Scrivener. I have been a subscriber to the Macworld feed for a long time and follow it, as well as their excellent podcast, regularly. I hadn’t registered because I hadn’t felt the urge to post a comment before I saw the article asking for nominations. I have no reason to serve as “ballot stuffing”; I understand Jason Snell’s concern, but when I posted my comment, I expressed my own heart-felt opinion of a product that may have saved my current book project from eternal incompletion.

Now, why would Macworld discourage such spontaneous registrations? Just like Scrivener brings people to the Mac, it brings people to register on the Macworld web site – because it is not yet another shiny new app, but a product that really matters to how many people on this forum spend their working days. An application that makes a real difference.


I don’t think anyone has a problem with somebody mentioning their favourite software, that is the whole point of the thread. What the editor was concerned about (rightly), is an orchestrated forum campaign urging anyone and everyone to sign up and slam the thread with nominations.

Indeed, AmberV, I can see that as well. Only I had posted long before there was a call for it in the forum. I do admit that I had seen Lord Lightning’s comment to the Macworld thread (at least a poster that used the same memorable name) and that inspired me to post as well. I did not think that was a problem, though I did register specifically to make that comment.