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. -*/

Post a reply to this message