While I certainly see the purposes of these awards being purely motivational and generate recognition for an author's work, there are several fundamental questions to this which I would like answered, simply because the lack of transparency undermines the entire purpose.
There were hundreds of new stories in 2013. Who made this list? Who came up with this narrow band of a handful of stories inside which we must cast our vote? What was the process by which these stories were chosen? Were they judged on their merits, literary skills, popularity, or what? What were the criteria for such selections? How should we cast our vote, when the definition of 'best' story could simply be our favourite, or the only one we have read? And if no criteria had been given to what exactly the 'best' story is, should it therefore not be simply our 'favourite' story as it is practically a popularity contest?
Since the selection process is not transparent, and since this is a site that promotes quality fiction, 'best' is not an appropriate word for the small amount of stories that have been chosen which is then to be voted by willing forum voters who were not given the appropriate criteria of judgment for the word, 'best'. Even to the eventual winners, claiming to be 'the best story of 2013' is still rather too pretentious when there is little ground for which they could actually wear that title. If there *is* a transparent system behind the nominations, I would very much like to hear. Distinctions and acknowledgements would be very helpful to clarify that this award has taken into account the majority of works written in 2013, and indeed show that the forum clique had looked beyond members of their own and acknowledge other authors who share the same site they do.
Thanks for the clarification.