Appended below is a compilation of the comments included with the votes. In some cases the comment is redacted in part to avoid legal cases for defamation.
I regret the mix up which meant those who attempted to vote within the first seven hours were only able to select one person. That was remedied and folks had the opportunity to return and add people.
Once again there were numerous instances of people wanting to add to the nomination list who didn't do so during the week nominations were open. Some who had received few votes in previous years, had been deleted from the list, and nobody nominated them again. In some cases names suggested were already on the list, is it already too long for them to notice?
Despite objections to the requirement to have a Google or Gmail account to vote the number of voters was only marginally down from last year. It is evident this did not entirely eliminate duplicate voting. Suggestions on how to do so welcome.
Finally, there are inevitably those nominated who are disappointed in the result. Anyone nominated is already a local genealogy hero and should have received recognition locally. However, it's not just about being the smartest, most up-to-date, knowledgeable, diligent and helpful genealogist, the best presenter or the most active blogger. It's a combination. If you aspire to the next level consider how you can better measure up against the criteria:
Rockstar genealogists are those who give "must attend" presentations at family history conferences or as webinars; who when you see a new family history article or publication by that person, makes it a must buy; those you hang on their every word on a blog, podcast or newsgroup, or follow avidly on Facebook or Twitter.Just as in an election it's OK and expected to ask for a vote. That's easier, not quite essential if you reach a large audience by contributing on a regular basis through a blog or other social media activity.