Paul Bourke <pdb### [at] swineduau> wrote:
> Any interest in another short code contest?

  I would certainly try to participate.

> I wondered about adding a new twist to make it harder .... under 256 bytes
> and use only spheres. I'm up to organising it if there is sufficient
> interest.

  I agree with Christoph that, while this would increase the challenge,
it will most probably cause the results to be less spectacular because
the images will be much simpler than in a "freeform" contest. You just
have to look at the scc3 results to see what I mean with "spectacular".
(And it was indeed something which was awed even at slashdot.)

  Perhaps try with another "freeform" contest (ie. limited only to a
number of bytes, like the scc3), and if there's enough participation,
then we could think as a group if some other "challenging" ideas could
be used for a next contest? Just an idea.

  Some things should be learned from mistakes in scc3, though. The most
prominent one is, naturally, that it doesn't make sense that the same
image can get both first and third positions. Winning positions must
be exclusive (IOW even if an entry would classify for more than one
position, only the best one is given to it; the second-best image for
the other position is selected for that other position).

  Also I think that, while this *is* a "short code" contest, perhaps a
bit ironically, less weight should be put into the actual length of the
code (as long as it's inside the required limit). Putting too much weight
in it only causes extremely short-code images to get illogically good places
which they don't seem to deserve on basis of their visual content. Or
if I express the same thing bluntly: Ugly images will get good positions
only because they are extremely short.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message