The clock is running out on the nominations period for our Hot Gossips Gawker Hotties competition. So if you've got any favorites, take this last chance to send them in.

Just a quick reminder that we'll be accepting nominations in this week's Gawker Hotties contest until noon tomorrow.

To whatever extent this statement isn't a total oxymoron, we've thus far walked the high road in our Gawker Hotties competitions. We first considered the dignified First Amendment crusaders at The New York Times. Next came the fully rectitudinous shiksa goddesses of Conde Nast. Now, though, we're crawling back to the gutter — where, frankly, we're most comfortable — to name New York City's gossip-writing hotties.

There they there are, folks, the winning women of Conde Nast. You picked Vogue's Jillian Demling as your favorite fashionista in 4 Times Square and New Yorker profiler Larissa MacFarquhar as your top literati.

As of just a few minutes ago, things are looking exciting at our Women of Conde Nast competition.

Can't decide who gets your vote in our Women of Conde Nast competition? That's what the testimonials are for.

About time, huh? Here, at long last, is the Women of Conde Nast competition. There were many speedbumps to navigate on the way to this moment, from diffuse nomination patterns (lots of ladies had a handful of votes; very few were clear-cut favorites) to difficulty in finding usable pictures to larger structural questions on how to define our two balloting categories and distribute finalists between them.

Here's the problem. You'd think all the lovely ladies of Conde would be easy to find in Google image search, and you'd think some of the young ones would be on Friendster, too. But no. That would make it too easy.

We know; Gawker Hotties is running behind schedule. Turns out, there's a lot of plausible hotties at Conde, and we've got a lot of nominations to dig through. (Also, we were out playing softball and drinking beer all night last night, which undermined our plan for an early start this morning.)

It's not a rhetorical question.

An anonymous 4 Times Square denizen with far too much time on his hands — don't they all have too much time on their hands? — deciphers for us the situational realities underlying the Women of Conde Nast nominations:

Just a quick reminder to submit your Women of Conde Nast nominations, due by noon today.

Just a quick reminder, folks, that we're still on the hunt for nominees in our latest installment of Gawker Hotties, this time looking at The Women of Conde Nast.

Last week we heard it for the boys. But now it's ladies' night (or, well, week). And if we're looking for a gorgeous group of female Gawker Hotties, where better to head than just across Times Square from last week's NYT festivities?

There they are folks, your ideals: Crossword editor Will Shortz is the Timesman you love for his brain, and Styles reporter Warren St. John is the Timesman you love for his body.

We're on the edge of our seat. Will Shortz has the "brains" category wrapped up in our Men of the Times contest, and, as of Friday afternoon, we thought Warren St. John held a similarly safe "body" lead. Things seemed that way through yesterday, too. But then overnight all hell broke lose.

Here's where our Men of the Times contest stands as of just a few minutes ago. It seems all locked up — Warren St. John has a comfortable "body" lead, and Will Shortz, of all people, is well ahead in the "brains" category. But remember that polls are still open till Monday morning, and, of course, that in Double Jeopardy anything can happen.

If you haven't already, go vote in our first-ever Gawker Hotties competition, this week focusing on Men of the Times. There are two categories, Love Him for His Brain and Love Him for His Body, so be sure to vote for one finalist in each.

It's here: Our much-anticipated, first-ever Gawker Hotties competition. We tallied your responses, added a soupçon of our own predilections, tossed in a dash of who-can-we-find-good-pictures-of, and, finally, we now present the formal contenders for your voting pleasure. (This recipe took much longer to prepare than expected. Sorry about that.)

Just a quick reminder that there's only an hour left to nominate your favorite finalists for Men of the Times voting, which kicks off tomorrow morning.