The window of opportunity for voting was really short, between the time the main competition ended and the results of this side competition were announced. I kind of missed the window.
Looking back, I’m not sure how I would have evaluated the reviews anyway. I’ve only read a small number of the other reviewers (mostly those that promote reviews within this forum) and only a small number of reviews (mostly those I’d already finished playing).
I am duly impressed with Mike, Victor and Carl for placing in both categories. However, I remain with the same nagging sense I had at the beginning of this that the goals of “wide coverage” and “deep thoughtful reviews” are at odds with one another. Reading several of Patrick Mooney’s reviews (which came to my attention only after his work was recognized in this side competition) I think they are amazingly thoughtful and entertaining. Best of show. But understandably, he only published nine of them (by the spreadsheet count). Good reviews take time to write, in some cases more time than was spent playing the actual game.