Chicagowright -- the "rationales" were unnecessary, your nominations had been fine. But -- these new hike descriptions are excellent examples of "impassioned and persuasive speech" which may win ultimate votes for your nominations!
Also, I received a call from the Alaska Chamber of Commerce asking for contact information for you! Seriously, your descriptiion helps me -- because I am tentatively planning my first trip ever to Alaska next year.
CMC2 -- I hereby adopt Rule # 19 -- humor is both allowed and encouraged!
saltydog -- no rule that nominations have to be "classic and iconic". The "test" I suggested was more in the spirit of -- and it's just my opinion -- that this will likely be in the minds of all voters. If only 10 hikes are selected from among scores, my guess is that familiarity (either by experience or reading) will contribute heavily to decision making. Even though a hike may be to die for (not literally!), if voters are first hearing about it via a nomination, and yet have had repeated exposure one way or another to other nominated hikes, my guess is that votes will go to those other hikes. Not that it's necessarily a good choice -- it's just what people, at large, do. For better or worse, popular vote and sentiment is sort of what defines "classic and iconic".
(I guess this is all good reason to put emphasis on that "impassioned and persuasive" pitch in for one's nominations, especially if they are relatively unknown.)
Hey, here's an idea!!! Can I form a SuperPAC and run adds for my and others' nominations?
