Jerry Stratton wrote:
> 
> In article <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> >  This is exactly what I have been whining about several times here. As
> >Dan excellently said it, cross-contamination of voting categories.
> >  A stunning looking image -> High score on each category.
> >  An ugly image -> low score on each category.
> >
> >  The question is: Can we do anything about this?
> 
> Probably not. Remember that the artistic and interpretation are going to
> depend heavily on the technical merit of the piece simply for natural
> reasons; and the interpretation score will depend heavily on the artistic
> merit of the piece.
> 
> ...
> I suppose you could "do something about this" by basing your artistic and
> concept scores on the text description, but then you'd be giving higher
> scores for the skill of writing :*)
> 
> Jerry


While I agree "contamination" is inevitable, and there is a strong correlation
in scores I give between categories, I still assert it is extreme that strike
ranked #1 in this category.

Re writing -- the writing is important.  An example was the "PVC Man" image...
with an alien among toy men with a question mark over his head.  Many voters
said the alien looked too much like the toys.  The obvious interpretation
of this is a lack of "tech"... reusing a model.  The author responded in email 
that this was intentional -- the alien was confused because he had assumed the
figures, which bore his resemblance, were the most intelligent life forms,
and thus sought to contact them.  Unfortunately this wasn't mentioned
in text, so his tech and his concept scores both likely suffered,
as voters assumed the simpler explanation.  Knowing what he intended, I now
consider it a novel interpretation of the theme.

Dan


-- 
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message