I've seen a few comments about having the concept of a
round be revising an older image, but that would leave out
some artists.  Instead of doing that, what do people think
 of having a "progressive" or "revisional" round, when you
 have 3 6-week periods to work on your image, at the end
of which time you would submit it in it's current state?  Ie
 you work on a picture for 6 weeks and submit it, everyone
else comments on it, you work six more weeks and submit a
new version, get more comments, and work six more weeks
to submit and be judged?  If this were done, we could also
add a fourth category for the judging, "Revision", basically
which picture improved the most over the course of the
three stages...

Just a thought.  Comments, anyone?
...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> I've seen a few comments about having the concept of a
> round be revising an older image, but that would leave out
> some artists.  Instead of doing that, what do people think
>  of having a "progressive" or "revisional" round, when you
>  have 3 6-week periods to work on your image, at the end
> of which time you would submit it in it's current state?  Ie
>  you work on a picture for 6 weeks and submit it, everyone
> else comments on it, you work six more weeks and submit a
> new version, get more comments, and work six more weeks
> to submit and be judged?  If this were done, we could also
> add a fourth category for the judging, "Revision", basically
> which picture improved the most over the course of the
> three stages...

> Just a thought.  Comments, anyone?

Could be interesting, but then wouldn't there be an incentive to not do your
best work until the end.  I mean, if you do a smashing job at the beginning,
there just isn't much revision required, so the improvement wouldn't be very
much, so your overall score drops... Not good.

Also, it's a lot of work for the voters, since there'd need to be all these
rounds of commenting.

And finally, 4.5 months is an awfully long time to work on an image, over 2x
a normal IRTC still round.  A month, or even 2-3 weeks could be better. 
Yeah, the first images would suck, or not have important details, or
whatever, but that would be the point, wouldn't it?

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers wrote:
> 
> (...) Ie
>  you work on a picture for 6 weeks and submit it, everyone
> else comments on it, you work six more weeks and submit a
> new version, get more comments, and work six more weeks
> to submit and be judged?

This would impose strict working conditions for the
participants. I mean, every round, some entries are
submitted by people who claim they had no time, or
only two weeks here or there to do them. Of course,
they rarely win, but they participate.

Basically, I don't know if many people will accept
such restrictions, or how many you will lose in the
process (thousands overjoyed participating at the
beginning, three tired people at the end). :-)

> If this were done, we could also
> add a fourth category for the judging, "Revision", basically
> which picture improved the most over the course of the
> three stages...

I agree with Geoff Wedig for this: it would incitate
people to submit poor versions until a final, sudden
"improvement". I also agree when he says that globally,
the round would be too long.

Adrien

Post a reply to this message