"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:web.3f78a3466f3cbf13a0c272b50@news.povray.org...
|
| But my artistic and technical scores puzzled me, and
| don't seem to fit your theory. If I was judging my own
| entry I'd have probably reversed those two.  I thought
| artistically it was pretty good while technically it
| was so-so. My score says the opposite. Go figure.

My theory isn't that all of the technical scores will be necessarily
reversed, just that there is a lot of confusion about what technically
is required to produce an image. The same is true in p.b.i.. I could go
home tonight and in a few hours create something trivial like a Borg
cube, and if I posted that in p.b.i., people would be lining up to tell
me what a genius I am. If I posted something truly difficult, however,
it would fly over many heads.

For this reason, I believe "technical merit" should be removed as a
voting category from the IRTC. When the last competition's highest
technical merit score went to what appeared to be an entry in the
shortest code contest, then it is obvious that the IRTC judging pool is
not nearly sophisticated enough to assign a score to that criteria.
"Technical merit" has apparently become a tilt for images with lots of
tiny (even identical) bits.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message