David Buck wrote:

> A 5 point system is just as easy to implement as a 10 point system.  I'm 
> open to this suggestion if people think it's the best way.

I think 5 points is a bit coarse, there will hopefully be many
"great" images submitted (although not by me) and the voter likely
wants to give them "great" votes but still be able to make his or
her favourite stand out a bit ;) 0-10 sounds reasonable to me.

Regarding the categories, it seems a bit redundant
to vote for the "overall" image. Like, I find it's
technically horrible and of no artistic value, but a
great picture anyway? Also, the distinction between
artistic and concept was always a bit blurred.

How about just two categories "artistic" and "technical",
where "artistic" encompasses the concept as well? If this
puts too much emphasis on the technical aspects, weighted
averages such as 2:1 or 3:2 could be used. Using fewer
categories also reduces tediousness of voting when a
successful round attracts 50 to 100 entries.

Apart from that, I'd also support keeping the voting
confined to panel judges as well as present and past
entrants - whatever the time limit. Prizes could
include winning a longer right to vote ;)

Finally, I think partial votes should not count (in fact
should not be possible to submit in an automated system),
as they might be biased by the ordering of the list, and
votes should not be disclosed until voting period ends.

Post a reply to this message