 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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"?
We'd get a 1st 2nd and 3rd favorite pictures and no honorable mentions.
It'd be a single dimensional contest which doesn't sound quite as
interesting to me anyway. I suppose we don't all value the same things,
and a single category would give the most freedom to each voter to vote
for whichever reasons they think are valid. Keeping more categories
could catch more participant interest though.
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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"?
Actually come to think of it, I personally think the optional comments
people can leave are probably one of the most worthwhile parts of the
contest.
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:50:46 -0700, Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
>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"?
This gets my vote, if you will pardon the pun :-)
Who can say what "artistic" is? It is different things to different people.
Likewise "Technical ability" is it really important in "art" ?
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Might be too late to mention this, but I've always felt that a 5-point
> score system is easier for users :)
IMO it's too coarse.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Et tu, David Buck, contra me ?
> So I'd like to know if you have any suggestions on how to do this.
> 1) How do we accept new voters?
>
Login/pass.
> 2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
>
Absolutly.
> I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
> - overall
Rather a 'WOW facror', mentioned elsewhere...
> 4) Should we allow partial voting?
>
Partial voting shouldn't be allowed... (IMHO :)
And for non-submitters, some kind of rate system ( like many
'Rate my something' sites has) could be implemented...
> David Buck
Slawek (and his $0.03
--
________ BOFH excuse 143:
_/ __/ __/ had to use hammer to free stuck disk drive heads.
\__ \__ \_______________________________________________________________
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1) How do we accept new voters?
> 2) Should submitters be allowed to vote in the round they submit to?
I propose that submitters are the only people allowed to vote. They earn that
privilege by contributing to the competition. I propose this is cumulative in
the sense that any entrant who has successfully been awarded a prize/place is
then a voter in perpetuity.
> I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
I personally often found these categories difficult to distinguish.
I would tend to err on the side of simplicity and have one category ... "best
PovRay rendering of theme ...".
I haven't gone back and checked the old system but wonder if the technical and
artistic didn't generally correlate quite highly. Adearance to theme ... well
aren't submitters going to rank theme relevant entries automatically?
> 4) Should we allow partial voting?
> - by this I mean rating some images but not all
One needs to rank all of them, in order to make this a time efficient process
then this reenforces a single category.
Or, one ranks the top N images (potentially in each category). This did seem to
work well for the scc competitions.
Personally, I think source code should be mandatory. Especially if there is a
technical category.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>>> "Warp" == Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
Warp> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> Might be too late to mention this, but I've always felt that a 5-point
>> score system is easier for users :)
Warp> IMO it's too coarse.
You could let each person select a "lo" and "hi" point of their own
scale, and then normalize the values to a floating point from 0.0 to 1.0.
If I want a 3-point scale, I'd get it. If you wanted a 0-100 scale, you'd get
your own.
Best of all worlds.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer### [at] stonehengecom> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
> - overall
> - technical merit
> - artistic merit
> - concept and interpretation of theme
Does anyone have any good idea about how to avoid cross-contamination
of categories?
The only solution I can think of is to have only one category.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
> > I intend to allow voters to rate each image in 4 categories
> > - overall
> > - technical merit
> > - artistic merit
> > - concept and interpretation of theme
>
> Does anyone have any good idea about how to avoid cross-contamination
> of categories?
I think I'd rather have 2+ categories than just one. Even if we just had two:
- quality of image (by whatever criteria one favours)
- concept/interpretation.
My reasoning is that we need some way to penalise entrants who deviate from the
theme - I remember seeing many images that were technically and artistically
very good, but had almost no relevance to the theme. In that case, what's to
stop someone just submitting an old image that they happen to be proud of? The
idea of the compo (for me) is to create a new image inspired by the theme. A
concept/interpretation category could also incorporate the artistic score.
I always found it very easy to rate images by concept and interpretation. I used
to score common variations on an obvious interpretation lower than more original
or laterally-thought-out images.
However, I definitely agree that 'overall' is a bit hand-wavey, and that four
may be too many categories.
Just my tuppence
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
