Charles C wrote:
> How pretty art is, is different from how clever/witty it is -- just as 
> how effective a technique is in accomplishing an effect is also 
> completely different from how technically involved it was to produce. 
> How do you compare a well chosen/applied simple technique against an 
> overly ambitious (read Rube-Goldberg-inspired) technique which showed 
> better promise than first-shot results?   I think it would be nice to be 
> able to credit different types of things in their own distinct 
> categories so people know in what ways their work is good or not good. I 
> do agree though that too many would make voting tedious.
> 2c,
> Charles

Here's a novel thought: do we really need more than one category?  Why 
not just have one score, and let that be that?  After all, is it really 
worthwhile to say, "Well, *this* picture was extremely difficult for the 
author to make because of the method he used, so the fact that he pulled 
it off makes up for it's being a lousy image"?

---

And another thought about ratings scales: what if every user's score 
were "normalized", so that the average the middle two quartiles are 
scaled from 2.5-7.5 (so the mean of the two quartiles would be a 5), and 
the two outlying quartiles are scaled from 0-2.5 and 7.5-10?

This could make up for individual voter biases (like the fact that some 
people, when using a 10 point scale, only hand out between 9 and 10 
point scores).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message