Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   I have an idea which may help a little bit to avoid the so-called
> category cross-contamination.
>   A short recapitulation: There is a little problem in the voting of the
> irtc images (and perhaps animations too): There are three different
> categories to vote, but they are usually used as a general "how stunning
> image this is"-vote, ie: if an image is stunningly beautiful/photorelistic
> or whatever, it will probably be scored high in each category, no matter
> if it isn't very good on each one of those.
> 
>   The idea: After voting each category, voters have to write a short
> description about why they gave that score in that category. The votes
> and description are published with each image (as the comments pages are).
> 
>   Perhaps this way people may think a bit more on each category.
>   For example:
> 
>   "Wow! This is an astonishing image! Wonderful! Great! All that detail!
> Let's vote."
> 
>   Tech: 20. Great image! So photorealistic! The amount of detail is
> astonishing. etc etc...
> 
>   Art: 20. The image is beautiful. It's... er... well...
> hmm...
>   Art: 18. The image is beautiful, but perhaps a little bit unimaginative...
> hmmmm... actually...
>   Art: 16. The image is rather beautiful, but a little bit unimaginative.
> Although it's technically great, it looks more like an architecture book
> photograph, not like a painting. etc etc...
> 
>   Concept: 16. .... well, er...
> better:
>   Concept: 10. This image doesn't fit very well in the topic. It really
> isn't absolutely out-of-topic, but I don't think it represents the topic
> very well. Also there is a total lack of originality: just a boring
> building with nothing special in it. etc etc...
> 
>   Just an idea.
> 
> --
> main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
> *_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/


I think this might help, but I see a problem arising here. It takes a
lot of time looking through the entries carefully and then voting
carefully. I guess this is also true for most of the voters. When I
checked the voting results I saw that only 50 (!!!) votes had been made
and only 45 (!!!) complete votes had been made. This means that not even
50% of the entrants did vote! If the workload for voting increases the
number of voters may drop to a level which may not be representative
anymore. 

Maybe the numbers given in the voting form can be precised by added text
like:



artistic 20: Perfect arrangement of objects and colors...
.
.
.
artistic 10: This picture hardly shows some several flaws in the
arrangement.
.
.
.
artistic  1: This picture has absolutely no artistic merit

This method has the advantage that it doesn't slow down the voting but
it makes people more conscious what they are voting and it might even
help voting newbies.

Just my two cents.

Marc
 
-- 
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message