 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It seems that there may be a reasonably large number entrants so perhaps
> the
> discussion approach is too risky.
Yes, then I'm with the others, especially
Jim Charter: "...the equal and anonymous vote
is still the most trustworthy approach."
Bye, Olaf.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sounds like a good way to start an argument to me. The winner would be
whoever 's work appealed to the most persuasive writers...
Voting isn't perfect, but at least it avoids judges unfairly biasing
one-another.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Paul Bourke" <pau### [at] uwa eduau> wrote in message
news:web.45605024a9280db9302aaef00@news.povray.org...
> For those who have already contributed to the 2006 Short Code Competition
> and to those who plan to contribute ..... I had planned for the entrants
> to
> simply send in their votes, I tabulate them and announce the winners, I
> can obviously still do this.
>
> However I was wondering if there were some other more interesting ways of
> handling the voting. How about a private newsgroup on this server where
> the
> entrants (who were the only ones with initial access) discussed the
> entries
> and tried to come to some concensus. This assumes someone who has
> managment
> control of the povray news server is prepared to set this up for us.
> Do you think this would work? Result in chaos, fights, bullying, ... or
> might be a nice transparent / fun way of deciding on the rankings.
> -------------------------------------
> P a u l B o u r k e
> http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/
>
>
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Bourke wrote:
> However I was wondering if there were some other more interesting ways of
> handling the voting. How about a private newsgroup on this server where the
> entrants (who were the only ones with initial access) discussed the entries
> and tried to come to some concensus. This assumes someone who has managment
> control of the povray news server is prepared to set this up for us.
> Do you think this would work? Result in chaos, fights, bullying, ... or
> might be a nice transparent / fun way of deciding on the rankings.
I think having a discussion thread for a few days would be good - could
just be a public thread on here. Even make the final entries publicly
visible so non-participants can join in the discussion before the actual
voting gets done by entrants...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
When will the entries be available for viewing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When will the entries be available for viewing?
to the entrants now.
Bye, Olaf.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Btw, each entrant voting for the three best images, and each such
images getting one point each, might make it likely that two or more
images will get the same amount of votes. If this happens with the top
images, it will cause difficulty in deciding their relative position.
How about entrants giving 3 (or perhaps more, like 5) votes in order
of preference? The first image would get 3 points, the second 2 points
and the third 1 point. Or if we don't want such a big difference between
them, perhaps something like the first image gets 5 points, the second 4
points and the third 3 points (which evens out their weight a bit).
This will lessen the likelihood of two top images getting the exact
amount of points, and it will give a chance for the voters to give more
points to their preferred entry than to the second and third best.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> How about entrants giving 3 (or perhaps more, like 5) votes in order
> of preference?
No opinions on this?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As we're mostly giving 0 points to all but three entries,
I'd say 5,4,3 is still a too wide range of weighs.
Is that really the weight and the distance you would give
for your three favorites? I think it's even hard to pick
3, I like more of them. Then I'd give the three I pick
quite the same score rather 1.01, 1.0 and 0.99 or so,
so I'd opt for the nomral even wighed vote and
then make it a second round voting, if there is a tie
between 2 or more scenes.
Bye, Olaf.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> As we're mostly giving 0 points to all but three entries,
> I'd say 5,4,3 is still a too wide range of weighs.
The fnal voting scheme is 3,2,1,1,1
That is, the entrants vote for their 5 best entries in order and the above
are the weights.
ps: if you are an entrant and haven't voted yet then please do so .... if I
get all the votes in then I can release the results before the 15 December.
-------------------------------------
P a u l B o u r k e
http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Bourke <pau### [at] uwaeduau> wrote:
> ps: if you are an entrant and haven't voted yet then please do so .... if I
> get all the votes in then I can release the results before the 15 December.
Should there be a confirmation email that the votes have been received?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
