Nieminen Mika wrote:

> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> :>   You sound angry.
>
> : Me ! Angry ? Not at all. I'm only expressing an opinion.
>
>   You still sound angry :)

I AM NOT ANGRY DAMN IT !(&%$@*/-*   ;^ }

> : If people are unable to handle
> : the task of judging multiple entries no matter how great the number then
> : perhaps they don't belong on the judging panel.
>
>   That was my point: How do you control that?

Getting them to read Jerry Anning's reply to this thread would be a great
start.Perhaps this newgroup will help spread the correct philosiphy to the larger
community. There is that to hope for anyway.

Ken Tyler

>   I don't know how many people is judging the images or if there are judges
> who estimate the images in one long session terminating at 2am, but there
> is a possibility that somebody is doing this, or even many people. The idea
> "they souldn't do that" doesn't help. If they do it, they do it.
>   This way people who name their files with leading zeroes are getting
> advantage in a very unfair manner, because it's possible that some people
> are judging the images this way. Maybe nobody is doing this, but since
> there is the possibility, it causes that participants can get unfair advantage.
>   Of course you can get advantage even if the images are sorted randomly if
> your image gets at the top, but the next time it's not probable you get at
> the top again. At least you can't deliberately place yourself at the top.
>   Maybe it's even possible to give a different ordered list to each judge,
> so possible disadvantages are minimized.
>
> --
>                                                            - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message