Hello again!
"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:392533b3@news.povray.org...
> I'm afraid many voters will judge upon what they see.
> I'm not sure they will judge upon what they *don't* see.
>
> If a logo creator decides to present his logo in really fancy ways only,
and
> he doesn't present his logo in the limited formats, then I think some
voters
> will judge upon the fancy version only. They may give the logo a high
score
> because they like what they see, but that is not so good if the logo
> actually wouldn't have looked nice in simple formats.
>
> Therefore I think there should be some rules about in which formats the
> logos should be submitted. To help the voters.
[SNIP]
>
> I may not become popular by saying this, but I'm questioning the voters
> ability to judge upon what they *don't* see. I'm not sure everybody will
> think that far. Therefore I think we should make sure that the voters see
> what they need to see.

If the voters are mainly those who haunts these groups, I am fairly
confident  that they are capable of such thinking. I believe most other
Povray users can too. Nonetheless, I understand your concern - my way of
dealing with it would be to educate the voters : guidelines for voters.
(Maybe I am a bit too confident and naive.)


> We can not say for sure that it isn't possible for one person to make a
lot
> of different logos that are all very good. Similar, there can also be a
> person who makes one logo only, and it can still be a poor logo.

I think a person capable of designing many different and excellent logo is
also capable to select the bests ones within his works. And that doing so
_is_ part of the design process. However this is my (current way of seeing
life/people?)/(philosophy?)/(paradigm?)/(vision?), not an established fact.
So: I agree, unreservedly.



> I think we should have some kind of limit, but the limit should be based
on
> quality, not on who has made the logo.
>
> For example we could say that logos can only be submitted to the contest
if
> there's at least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will support
> has no chance of winning anyway.
[SNIP]
>
> If we follow my suggestion the amount of logos will be limited in a
natural
> and fair way.

I never thought about such a system. I think it is a very good one.


> > I think a restriction on the total number
> > of logos, independent of a number/author
> > limit, can be a much worse creativity
> > restriction (the more so if the firsts
> > submitters each post numerous variations).
>
> I did certainly not mean that the order of the submissions was the way to
> make the restriction!

As I wrote, I never thought about such a system as yours. I inappropriately
assumed that you would limit the total number of logos. I do apologise for
implicitly putting such words in you mouth.



> What do you think of my suggestion?

Very good, I think.

I see some potential problems. (1)Deadline and the collecting of support.
Last-minute entrants would have a hard time getting support. Could support
be given on drafts? (2) If anybody can give support, the rule will have no
real effect. Anybody can get 3 friends to give blindly such support - and
one can even set up fake net-identities to ive himself support. OTOH,
getting more then 3 "serious" (for example people from this ng) could be
hard... I have no solution to offer.
One wild suggestion : first logo could be "free"(no
support). Possibly, successive logos could need a growing number of
support...


(Sorry for the late answer : I could not post this Friday, I had to wait for
this Monday morning - I only get access to the Internet at work).



Povingly,



Philippe

Post a reply to this message

> "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote > >
> > For example we could say that logos can only be submitted to the contest
> if
> > there's at least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will
support
> > has no chance of winning anyway.
>

    I preemptively give my support for -every- submission. Now they only
need two.

    This seems to me to be just a method of pre-voting and would cast away
any people who prefer to send theirs in without previous critique.

Post a reply to this message

"Philippe Debar" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> > If a logo creator decides to present his logo in really
> > fancy ways only, and he doesn't present his logo in the
> > limited formats, then I think some voters will judge
> > upon the fancy version only. They may give the logo a
> > high score because they like what they see, but that is
> > not so good if the logo actually wouldn't have looked
> > nice in simple formats.
> >
> > I may not become popular by saying this, but I'm
> > questioning the voters ability to judge upon what they
> > *don't* see.
>
> If the voters are mainly those who haunts these groups,
> I am fairly confident that they are capable of such
> thinking.

If I see a color logo with lots of details and effects, I will not be able
to tell how it will look in a simple black and white version. Therefore I
would like to *see* the black and white version.

> I believe most other Povray users can too. Nonetheless,
> I understand your concern - my way of dealing with it
> would be to educate the voters : guidelines for voters.
> (Maybe I am a bit too confident and naive.)

Hmm, would that be like saying to the voters, "When deciding if a logo is
good, try to imagine how it would look in just black and white (...)".

Why shouldn't we instead simply *show* them how it looks in black and white?

> > I think we should have some kind of limit,
> > but the limit should be based on quality,
> > not on who has made the logo.
> >
> > For example we could say that logos can only
> > be submitted to the contest if there's at
> > least 3 persons who supports it. Logos that
> > nobody will support has no chance of winning
> > anyway.
> >
> > What do you think of my suggestion?
>
> Very good, I think.
>
> I see some potential problems. (1)Deadline and
> the collecting of support. Last-minute entrants
> would have a hard time getting support. Could
> support be given on drafts?

We could maybe have a period meant for collecting support.

> (2) If anybody can give support, the rule will
> have no real effect. Anybody can get 3 friends
> to give blindly such support - and one can even
> set up fake net-identities to ive himself support.
> OTOH, getting more then 3 "serious" (for example
> people from this ng) could be hard... I have no
> solution to offer.

I think those who allowed to vote in the contest are also those who can
support logos. That is, any POV-Ray user.

Furthermore, I actually meant that one person could give support for one
logo only. If not so, one person could just support all the logos. It may
greatly limit the number of logos that enter the competition, but those
logos that doesn't make it had no chance of winning anyway.

> One wild suggestion : first logo could be "free"
> (no support). Possibly, successive logos could
> need a growing number of support...

I personally don't see what the reason for such a rule would be. It would
(again) be like telling people that it is preferred that each person make a
few logos only, and I don't see the reason for that. I think, let the voters
decide instead, either by using the "support method" or by not limit the
submissions at all.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> "Rune" wrote:
> For example we could say that logos can only be
> submitted to the contest if there's at least 3
> persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will
> support has no chance of winning anyway.
>
> I preemptively give my support for -every-
> submission. Now they only need two.

Well, actually I meant that each person could give *one* support only.

> This seems to me to be just a method of
> pre-voting and would cast away any people who
> prefer to send theirs in without previous
> critique.

I personally wouldn't like to see 100+ logos on the voting page (for
bandwidth reasons mainly), so I thought we could "filter out" the logos that
has no chance of winning anyway. That way we could for example prevent one
person from submitting lots of different versions of the same logo, if some
of the versions are not popular at all anyway.

Maybe it would be better if each logo needed one supporter only, or maybe
it's not a good suggestion at all.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:39295333@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" wrote:
> > "Rune" wrote:
> > For example we could say that logos can only be
> > submitted to the contest if there's at least 3
> > persons who supports it. Logos that nobody will
> > support has no chance of winning anyway.
> >
> > I preemptively give my support for -every-
> > submission. Now they only need two.
>
> Well, actually I meant that each person could give *one* support only.

No! Please!

This does exactly what you want to avoid : it limits the total number of
logo to 1/3 of the number of people willing to give their votes - so
probably to 1/3 of the number of people frequenting this ng, if one admits
they all have an interest in the logo contest. I think this is much more
restricting then what I proposed : number of logos limited by [3-5]*(number
of informed people), as opposed to (number of informed people)/3.



> I personally wouldn't like to see 100+ logos on the voting page (for
> bandwidth reasons mainly), so I thought we could "filter out" the logos
that
> has no chance of winning anyway. That way we could for example prevent one
> person from submitting lots of different versions of the same logo, if
some
> of the versions are not popular at all anyway.

er... if they are just minor variations of the same logo, most people would
support most variations. Hence, the author will have to choose himself
because of the support requirement. Which is exactly what I advocate.


> Maybe it would be better if each logo needed one supporter only,

I suppose an author cannot support himself. This still restrict the total
number of logos to (informed people)/2.

> or maybe
> it's not a good suggestion at all.


I think the idea is a good one, but that it would be much work to make a
workable implementation.



Povingly,

Philippe

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:3929532c@news.povray.org...
> > If the voters are mainly those who haunts these groups,
> > I am fairly confident that they are capable of such
> > thinking.
>
> If I see a color logo with lots of details and effects, I will not be able
> to tell how it will look in a simple black and white version. Therefore I
> would like to *see* the black and white version.

What can I say???

> > I believe most other Povray users can too. Nonetheless,
> > I understand your concern - my way of dealing with it
> > would be to educate the voters : guidelines for voters.
> > (Maybe I am a bit too confident and naive.)
>
> Hmm, would that be like saying to the voters, "When deciding if a logo is
> good, try to imagine how it would look in just black and white (...)".
>
> Why shouldn't we instead simply *show* them how it looks in black and
white?


No, what I say is: if the author, who was toroughly informed, choosed to not
include a B/W version, was it a good choice? Was he able to show you things
that are, after viewing them, more important/difficult to see/visualise then
the B/W version? Or was he trying to impress you with effects and to mask
his logo's lack of substance?

Hence: author responsability.


> > I see some potential problems. (1)Deadline and
> > the collecting of support. Last-minute entrants
> > would have a hard time getting support. Could
> > support be given on drafts?
>
> We could maybe have a period meant for collecting support.


I can see a designer not working on his logo if it is not already submitted.
If the "support" phase needs the logos to be submitted/locked, then it
really is a voting.


> > One wild suggestion : first logo could be "free"
> > (no support). Possibly, successive logos could
> > need a growing number of support...
>
> I personally don't see what the reason for such a rule would be. It would
> (again) be like telling people that it is preferred that each person make
a
> few logos only, and I don't see the reason for that. I think, let the
voters
> decide instead, either by using the "support method" or by not limit the
> submissions at all.


I think any protocol limiting the total number of logos is telling peoples
that we prefer to see few logos. I proposed the "growing number of support,
starting at 0" rule to address a few shortcoming of the "3 supports" method,
such as less restricting the total number of logos, giving a chance to an
isolated author (with few chance of getting a support) or facilitating
last-minute entries.




Povingly,


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote :
>
> Well, actually I meant that each person could give *one* support only.
>

    That would limit us to (number of voters) / (number of required
"support" votes) total images. Not what we want I think. If this is
important enough to do it is important enough to allow any and all
submissions and let those who want to vote deal with the download issues.

    Anything else is either severely restricting the number of submissions
or blatant pre-voting.

Post a reply to this message

OK, let's just drop the whole idea of restricting the number of logos. Let's
say it's up to the individual logo designers not to submit too many versions
of the same logo. I was not sure it was a good idea after all. It helped to
get some feedback!

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Philippe Debar" <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:392ba4ba@news.povray.org...
>
> "Rune" wrote:
> > If I see a color logo with lots of details and
> > effects, I will not be able to tell how it will
> > look in a simple black and white version.
> > Therefore I would like to *see* the black and
> > white version.
>
> What can I say???

Take Chris Colefax's logo for example. I have some idea what it will look
like in black and white, but I can't tell for sure if it will look nice
before I have seen it.

> No, what I say is: if the author, who was toroughly
> informed, choosed to not include a B/W version, was
> it a good choice? Was he able to show you things
> that are, after viewing them, more important/difficult
> to see/visualise then the B/W version? Or was he
> trying to impress you with effects and to mask his
> logo's lack of substance?
>
> Hence: author responsability.

The point here is that there's a RULE saying the the logos must work in
black and white, and there's a reason that rule were made. Therefore the
voters should be able to see how the logo looks in black and white.

Greetings,

Rune

---
Updated April 25: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
Containing 3D images, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, 350+ raytracing jokes,
miscellaneous other things, and a lot of fun!

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:39344179@news.povray.org...
> The point here is that there's a RULE saying the the logos must work in
> black and white, and there's a reason that rule were made. Therefore the
> voters should be able to see how the logo looks in black and white.


I agree completely. What I believe in is:
1) everybody knows the logo should work in B/W;
2) voters will vote accordingly (or not, if they do not agree with point 1);
3) author choose what they submit, including if they submit a b/w image and
knowing the potential consequences.


Hence authors who:

- do not agree with point 1,
or
- think they can use the avalaible space to show something they believe more
important,

can act accordingly. And let the voters judge - it _is_ their job. If a
voter think an author as mis-used the avalaible space, preferring to show
fancy FX rather then a logo, he can score this logo very low.

OTOH, if an author think the B/W version is important (as I think it is), he
will include it. If he is unsure, he will follow the guidelines and be on
the safe side. And I carry this line of reasonning to all formats: so I'd
only fix a total submission size, letting each author choose how he wants to
use it (why not its own html presentation page?).

Now, I do not pretend I am right or that you are wrong. It is only my
opinion: these are justs the rules I would use if I were to organise the
contest. Just my personnal taste.



I am glad you are back. I hope your HD was left undamaged.



Povingly,


Philippe

Post a reply to this message