I agree with Jack Norris wholeheartedly. We were specifically asked to vote on our favourite runs, not our favourite creators. I voted for Miller/Mazzucchelli’s Daredevil run and Miller’s solo run as writer/artist. If you amalgamate my two votes into one, then Miller wil end up receiving more points from me than my number one choice, which would hardly be a true reflection of my voting intentions.

Had I gone with merged voting, I would have just counted whichever one got the higher vote total (and just moved every other vote on the list up).

It’s what I do when people make invalid choices – ignore it and move everything up one spot.

That said, I will be going with the separate counts – just with a notation somewhere to show how many total votes each one got, for the curious folks out there (of course, said curious folks could just add the two totals up themselves, but I’m nothing if not accommodating ).

And yes, in the comments section of the initial entry.

Here is the link – http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/03/01/comics-should-be-goods-top-100-comic-book-runs/

Thanks for voting!

I still have to vote — Brian, what is the code you want us to use in the comments section again? That is where you want us to vote, right? Or should I send you my choices via e-mail?

Furthermore, any amalgamation will have the effect of downplaying the role of artist for a comic’s success. Lee/Dikto’s Spiderman is a very different beast to Lee/Romita’s Spiderman.

Then the onus is on the voter to specify their amalgamation, rather than expect that a vague reference to artist & title is to be understood as such.

Some “separate” runs are very similar in style and theme. Michelinie and Layton’s runs on Iron Man, for instance. Apart from some details, they could as well have been consecutive.

Claremont is a different case, admitedly. He wrote more than 100 issues of Uncanny X-Men, so according to Brian’s rules it’s already mandatory to match him with an artist, so you already got his run broken into several sub-runs.

Although I haven’t submitted my list yet (I’ve got a few more days…), I started with the assumption that I had to specify co-creators or issue number ranges etc. if a creator had multiple runs (especially non-consecutive ones, unless someone is just briefly interrupted by a fill-in) or a very long run of variable quality (like Claremont on the X-Men).
We were asked for favourite runs, not favourite creator & book combinations. There is a difference.

Some people may have meant “Miller’s Daredevil run” to include ‘Born Again’, since it is the single Miller Daredevil story which is most often referred to. Other people may have specifically meant just the initial stories. Some people may mean Miller’s Daredevil run to include the issues on which he just did art (“Volume One” of the Visionaries book). I think the best issue of DD Miller ever wrote was #219 — but that can’t fit in at all! (Can it?)

Seems like you should’ve solicited more specific votes, possibly including explicit issue numbers for clarity’s sake.

I’m with the camp saying to keep the results separate.

What COULD be done is dual listings. Using the example of the combined Miller DD coming in at #15, put 2 #15 entries: the combined Miller DD with an asterix or in parenthesis and the stand-alone #15. Then list the separate runs in their proper #38 & #59 spots. In this way you can ALMOST keep both camps happy.

I mean, unless there are a lot of people who voted for both runs, separately. Otherwise, you are really punishing the more popular run on the merits of the less just as much as rewarding the less popular run on the merits of the more.

Theno