> > o- Some kind of filter/rule to weed out unfinished/poor images. This will
> > then at least project a more 'serious' side to the comp.
> I think this is would be a difficult task. After all this would mean that
> somebody (who?) had to view all the images and make a choice to filter out
> the bad ones.

Just a half-thought out variation on the ideas here, feel free to ignore
this:

First people vote to choose maybe 20 images as the best. Then the the chosen
20 artists get one extra month to improve on their images if they want. In
the end a new vote is cast to choose the winning images from the improved
versions.

I already see three problems with this idea:

What to do this extra month? Should a new theme be chosen for people to work
on? Or will those who didnt get in top-20 just have to wait?

Who are allowed to vote the second time? I would suggest everyone who
participated initially..?

What to do with those who completely redesign their images in the second
round?

--
Some good points could be:

Some artists would use the extra month to improve the finer details of the
images. So overall the quality could improve. The voters would have
commented on their images in the first round so the artists would have
constructive criticism to build on in the second round as well.

This would give some participants an extra goal to reach. Now they
participate in the hope of getting to the second round. Its not just the
usual 3+3 prizes and then a hidden-away score list. This means the second
round should be big enough so at least some of the more hard-working
amateurs feel they have a chance.

Post a reply to this message