just the publicly released aggregates. and I didn't run any stats on them or anything; it's entirely possible that it wouldn't stand up to a rigorous analysis, or to looking at the actual ballots (certainly it's not going to be anything like as lockstep as the puppies, because again, not actually a slate. certainly I suspect most of those voters had a fair amount of spread in their noms, and there were people outside those circles who nommed some of them, because most of them were at least not objectively terrible.)

but to this casual observer, it did seem striking that a lot of the authors I associate with the corners of sf that I see overlapping on my circles were in very similar spots in the nominations listings, over and over again, even with things that didn't get a huge amount of buzz.

so it may not be true at all, but I definitely see how it could look true without doing the math. and we should implement my suggested fix either way. :p