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:

 <snipped good stuff>

Just to play the devil's advocate here...

There is merit in what you say but I see a possible fault in your logic.
You are asking people to rationalize a decision they have made for
each catagory and once they have made that decision for what ever
reason it was justifiable to them at the time. There may be some people
shooting from the hip on the way they vote but when pressured to
justify there decision pride will force them to rationalize that desicion
in favor of their voting scores. It may only complicate the voting
process without actually adding any real benefits to it.

Or as you say maybe it will force them into thinking about what they
are doing. Unfortunately human nature favors my former arguments.


Art critics are a fickle bunch and you may quote me on that.

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message