 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck wrote:
> 3) Voting
> - Votes would be on a scale of 1 to 10
> - A vote of 0 means the voter didn't rank the image
> - A voter must rank all images (except their own)
> - If they don't rank all images, they can't submit their votes
A vote of 0 would also be impossible given the next two items.
>
> - Voters don't see who submitted the image until voting is finished
I'm just wondering how this would affect reading the making-of
descriptions...
> - Voters don't see other votes or voter comments until voting is
> finished
Makes sense.
> - Overall is the total score of Technical + artistic + concept
>
> - 1st place, 2nd place and 3rd place are submissions with the three
> highest average overall scores.
> - i.e., total of overall scores / votes cast
Do you mean an individual entrant's total score divided by the number of
voters? While seeing the average would be interesting, dividing by the
number of voters wouldn't change the results in a system with
all-or-nothing voting.
>
> Does this sound reasonable?
Yes, except for a couple questions. :) Thank you for doing this.
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Leroy wrote:
>
> Sounds good to me! Can't wait!
>
> One minor thing I'd change
>
>> - Each ranking level corresponds to a text description
>> - the text description is displayed beside the rank
>> - eg.
>> change [1] = Lacks both knowledge and effort
> to [1] = Lacks knowledge or effort
>
> Because smart people do dumb things.
>
Fair enough.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> - Registration will capture home address and phone number
>
> Does this mean that, being a minor, I can't participate without first
> getting permission from my parents to give such information?
It would probably be a wise move in any event. If you were to win and
the IRTC admins decide to send out prizes (T-shirts, mugs, posters, etc)
they'd need to know where to send them to.
Do you have a problem telling your parents that you're submitting to a
raytracing competition? :-)
>
>> [5] = Shows very good BASIC skills
>> [6] = Shows ADVANCED level skills
>
> Wording makes me feel like something is missing between those two levels.
Yes, the wording can be worked on.
>
>> 5) The voting period is the 2 weeks after the submission deadline.
>
> This means "voting starts immediately after submission deadline, and
> ends 2 weeks later"? With an automated system, I bet "immediately" will
> not mean some hours :)
My intention is to allow the voting to start immediately after the
contest deadline. This can be automated so the transition would occur
instantly.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Charles C wrote:
>
>
> David Buck wrote:
>> 3) Voting
>> - Votes would be on a scale of 1 to 10
>> - A vote of 0 means the voter didn't rank the image
>> - A voter must rank all images (except their own)
>> - If they don't rank all images, they can't submit their votes
> A vote of 0 would also be impossible given the next two items.
>
>>
>> - Voters don't see who submitted the image until voting is finished
> I'm just wondering how this would affect reading the making-of
> descriptions...
The making-of descriptions should be worded in such a way as to not give
away the identity of the artist. Realistically speaking, though, people
will often be able to guess the artist based on their previous works. I
also see artists submitting works in progress to the POVRay news groups
for comments. This may be a problem we can't prevent.
>
>> - Voters don't see other votes or voter comments until voting is
>> finished
>
> Makes sense.
>
>> - Overall is the total score of Technical + artistic + concept
>>
>> - 1st place, 2nd place and 3rd place are submissions with the three
>> highest average overall scores.
>> - i.e., total of overall scores / votes cast
>
> Do you mean an individual entrant's total score divided by the number of
> voters? While seeing the average would be interesting, dividing by the
> number of voters wouldn't change the results in a system with
> all-or-nothing voting.
It makes a difference if some voters submitted entries and others
didn't. Those who submitted entries can't vote on their own entries.
This means that it's unfair to just total up the ratings. It would be
as if they had ranked themselves as 0 in all categories.
Instead, I will add up all of the ranks for an entry and divide by the
number of people allowed to vote for that entry (which will be everyone
but the submitter).
>
>>
>> Does this sound reasonable?
>
> Yes, except for a couple questions. :) Thank you for doing this.
> Charles
My pleasure. It means I get to play with Seaside, to work again with
the POVRay community and to encourage people to push the limits of the
technology. It's all good.
David Buck
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Do you have a problem telling your parents that you're submitting to a
> raytracing competition? :-)
Nope :) And actually odds are I won't even participate (I *know* I'll
score 1 in originality and such, or just never make it for the
deadline). I just wanted to mention it, because it seemed strange
requiring a home address and phone number for a contest where we aren't
even sure if there will be prizes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think we should consider some extraordinary circumstances and what
to do if they happen (let's hope they don't, but...)
What will be done if the amount of submissions is ridiculously low?
For example, let's assume that two people submit for a given round.
What will be done if the amount of votes is too low? Let's assume that
in a round of 20 images only 2 people vote.
Where will the line be drawn?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - Ranking will be in 3 categories
Seen Gille's latest post on the matter ?
Seen the graphs ?
Why keep the voting process 3 times longer than necessary ?
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberon com> schreef in bericht
news:47d5f520$1@news.povray.org...
> - Registration will capture home address and phone number
> - this helps prevent fraud
> - allows IRTC admins at their discretion to award prizes
> - registration information is only available to IRTC admins
>
This might be a minor/major issue in terms of privacy regulations. The
information therefore should really be secured.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think we should consider some extraordinary circumstances and what
> to do if they happen (let's hope they don't, but...)
>
> What will be done if the amount of submissions is ridiculously low?
> For example, let's assume that two people submit for a given round.
Then those two people will sweep the prizes ;) Seriously, we can throw
a war, but we can't guarantee that anyone will come fight...
> What will be done if the amount of votes is too low? Let's assume that
> in a round of 20 images only 2 people vote.
>
> Where will the line be drawn?
Supposedly that's why there are panel judges.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the proposal David.
I have two comments that I'd like to make:
First, given Gilles charts, does it still make sense to have 3 categories?
Or if we do have more than one category, could we change them so they are
not so closely related, and only grade the contest on one of them? (i.e.
the other one(s) are useful for ranking in terms of that category but don't
influence the outcome).
Several categories come to mind along those lines:
o 'eye candy' factor
o hof-worthy [this would only be useful for POV-Ray images of course]
o educational value [from description or source code]
By 'educational value' I don't mean socially educating but value in
educating users of the tool in question, or of 3d graphics in particular.
For example a person who regularly enters, doesn't win, but over time
accumulates a particularly high average 'educational value' score could be
pointed out for special honor at some point, or something ... basically
these other categories are a method of tracking 'interesting' information
that may be one day useful to the admins, as well as allowing those viewing
the rounds to sort by that category if they so wish.
Secondly, for each round in which more than (say) 10 people vote (including
panel judges, and hopefully there will be at least several of those), I'd
like to suggest that the N highest and lowest votes for each image are not
counted. For # of voters 10-15, N might be 1. For 16-30, N could be 2, and
so forth. So if we have 30 voters, the two highest and two lowest votes for
each image are disregarded - so the final score is calculated from the
remaining 26 votes.
The intent of this is to attempt to offset the influence of votes that are
well outside the norm for an image. I recognize that it's rather crude, and
a better approach to looking for voting anamolies would be to e.g. view a
standard deviation graph or some such, but that's something a statistician
would be better qualified to talk about, rather than me.
IIRC (not 100% sure but I'm fairly positive - I'd have to check the code to
be 100%), when calculating the POVCOMP votes, we did exclude the highest
and lowest for each image (even though all votes came from a panel).
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
