About SF awards

Torque Control has a post about SF awards in which Niall posed a few questions. The answers in the comments thread are interesting, and provide a, mainly, UK centric view of SF awards. I'll provide my own thoughts here...

Does the sf field have too many awards, or do they all serve valid audiences?
Personally I don't mind if there are a lot, I'll just pick the ones I care about to take notice of.

Is a shortlist more valuable than a final award, as a guide to what to read?
Well, maybe. I use the Clarke and BSFA awards to inform my reading picks. However, I feel fine not reading a book on the shortlist that I don't fancy, but feel I should always read the winners.

Should an award recognise what seems most vital now, or what seems most likely to last?
Now. You can't second guess the future.

In theory, juried awards take a longer/more contextualised view; does this mean they have a better chance of getting it “right�?
No idea. The Clarke often throws up books that I never would have considered, which must be good. I like the balance of both the Clarke and the BSFA awards together.

Juried awards — allegedly — tend to favour compromise candidates. But is that a bad thing?
Don't know, looking back at the Clarke winners however it seems to have got it right most of he time (if there is such thing as "right").