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] pacificwebguycom> 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

Another two cents worth on judging procedures
and categories:

Keeping the system simple and keeping the number
of categories and options down to a reasonable
minimum is a worthy goal worth making a few
sacrifices for, but let's not go too far in that
direction and unduly constrain the judges' ability
to give constructive feedback.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to supply short
definitions for each category which are worded
specifically enough so as to eliminate

so specific as to impose an exterior set of
aesthetic priorities.  I offer the following as a


Category 1: TECHNICAL MERIT:
The degree to which the image shows mastery of
the image creation process.

Category 2: ARTISTIC MERIT
The degree to which the image evokes in you
thoughts or feelings you deem significant or
praiseworthy.

Category 3: INTERPRETATION OF TOPIC:
The degree to which you feel the image expresses
the topic idea in a particularly original or
profound way.

While it is true enough that there will be some
overlap between any such list of categories, there
are significant enough differences between each of
three categories above to merit their separate existences.

On the subject of the number of gradations for each
category, I would propose that rather than choosing an
arbitrary number, we provide a descriptive term for each
value in a given category as well as a number and see where


TECHNICAL MERIT:
[0] = Lacks both knowledge and effort
[1] = Shows BEGINNER level skills
[2] = Shows good BASIC skills
[3] = Shows ADVANCED level skills
[4] = Shows EXPERT level skills
[5] = Shows EXTRAORDINARY skills(WOW!)

ARTISTIC MERIT:
[0] = Offensively trite and/or cliche
[1] = VERY LITTLE aesthetic impact
[2] = MODERATE aesthetic impact
[3] = SIGNIFICANT aesthetic impact
[4] = HIGH aesthetic impact
[5] = PROFOUND aesthetic impact (WOW!)

INTERPRETATION OF TOPIC:
[0] = Off-topic / inappropriate
[1] = Rather OBVIOUS idea
[2] = NOT A BAD idea
[3] = VERY GOOD idea
[4] = EXCELLENT idea
[5] = BRILLIANT idea (WOW!)

Under a system like the one above, I would suggest
that the general instructions indicate that both
[0]s and [5]s indicate unusual circumstances and
should be used extremely sparingly.  Also, there
should be a very strong suggestion, if not an
absolute rule, that a [0] or a [5] should be
accompanied by an explanation in the comments.

One goal that I would suggest for the new contest
is that it actively promote the participation and
development of newcomers to the field.  I hope that it
won't be one of those contests that routinely offers
kudos to a hand full of established elite artists
and a thumbing of the nose to everyone else.  Toward
this end, I would like to offer two specific proposals:

First,the competition should employ a comment system that
emphasizes CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and feedback for ALL
participants.  Feedback, encouragement and help are
among the prime motivators that will bring new people
into ray tracing and help to develop the elite artists
of the future.

Second, the terminology for rating
should offer non-derogatory options to describe the
work of those who are still in the rather early stages
of learning.  In the system above, for example, a newbie
might actually be encouraged by a Technical Merit rating



Well, thanks for taking the time to read my rather
long winded comments. The gist of of what I have to
say can be condensed down to this: I hope that the
new IRTC will be a fun and enjoyable experience that
offers both challenge and a sense of community to new
and expert ray traces alike.

Thanks, again, to all who are making the effort to
bring the IRTC back.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message