Back on November 17, I announced that Dog Jaunt’s giveaway in the Holiday Hop for Pets giveaway would be a dog-themed Christmas stocking, made from a pattern by Judith Swartz in her book Dogs in Knits. To get a chance to win, you had to “like” Dog Jaunt’s Facebook page and let me know what dog’s name you wanted to have stitched around the top band of the stocking. Forty-three of you responded, and told me your pups’ names — which enchanted me — and today we chose the winner randomly, using a modified version of The Otto Method.

I’ve explained the selection process, with a picture, below, but I want to tell you right away that the winner is Paige, who has four names to choose from: Simon, Sadie, Gracie and Maggie (aka. the RAT). Congratulations, Paige!! Please let me know which name you choose, and your mailing address, as soon as possible — feel free to send me an e-mail (my address is at the bottom of Dog Jaunt’s “About” page). I’ll send you your stocking within a day, or at most two, of receiving your pup’s name.

Thank you so much to everyone who entered the giveaway — it was such a delight to see your entries and learn your dogs’ names. I loved the pictures you sent, and I love knowing you’re out there when I post something on Dog Jaunt’s Facebook page. I hope you’ll stick around, even now that the giveaway is over — and if the Holiday Hop for Pets happens again in 2011, I’ll join it and knit you another stocking. Happy Holidays to you all, from the entire Dog Jaunt menagerie!

Otto, partway through the random selection process

You’ve seen The Otto Method in action before, but this time we didn’t make a sheet for each entrant. Instead, we numbered sheets of paper from “0” to “10,” laid them out randomly and upside-down in our foyer, and waited for Otto to flop over on one. We rousted Otto back onto his feet, wrote the number down, reshuffled, and waited for Otto’s next flop — and then we did it all again. We took those three numbers, put a decimal point in front, multiplied them by the number of entries, truncated the decimal part, and added “1” (since the numbers started at “0”). I’ll admit that I don’t fully understand this particular Otto Method, but my husband does, and he assures me it’s darned random.