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:
> David Buck escribió:
>>    - 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

David Buck escribió:
> 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

David Buck a écrit :
>    - 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] simberoncom> 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

David Buck wrote:

>    - Registration will capture home address and phone number

I don't see this as a problem but is a phone number really useful
for an international internet-based competion? It's usually email
for communication and login id, and sometimes home address for
verification and shipping purposes.

I assume registration will also capture the real name,
although that wasn't explicitely mentioned.

>    - Votes would be on a scale of 1 to 10
>       - A vote of 0 means the voter didn't rank the image

The use of the 0 seems a bit implementation oriented - oh,
let's store this information in an integer variable :-P

I think the interface should be able to provide something
like "-" or "unrated" to make it more clear. You could then
also encode it that as -1 and allow 0 as a vote.

>    - Every voter must provide a comment on each image they vote on

I agree that comments are very important, but I'm not sure if
enforced comments are helpful. It may just lead to a lot of "nice
image, I like it" responses for images where you wouldn't have
left a comment because you just didn't see any particular
problem or outstanding feature.

Furthermore, voting is a responsibility, but also a service
provided on a voluntary basis, so it feels awkward to enforce
it. It might backfire by deterring people from voting.

Also, it's obviously not something which automated system are
very adept at checking, and even administrators may be on thin
ice when disqualifying because they feel the comments are not
good enough (not talking about offensive comments, of course).

I'd opt for a strong recommendation to leave comments for as
many images as possible, enforcing comments for extreme votes
(you can't very well rate an image as 1,2,9 or 10 without
having something to say about it), and possibly requiring
a certain minimum number of comments (like 20%?).

A final technical note: It would be nice if the system was
capable of storing incomplete votes. I generally have a very
low trust level in browser compatibility issues when it comes
to filling out and submitting very long and tedious forms ;)

BTW, shouldn't these matters be discussed in irtc.general,
where they might also be seen by non-pov participants? Or
does new IRTC target POV-Ray alone?

Post a reply to this message

David Buck wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 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.

Of course we could always ask at the time. Honestly, provision of an
address is not deterrent for someone who wants to cheat since they'd just
make one up. However, that said, I think a contact address should be
provided, but for a different reason.

Do you know how *frustrating* it is to have someone contact you to ask
permission to use an IRTC image for a good cause, and to have to refuse
because you can't contact the author?

I do [:-(

I get IRTC admin mail, and have sometimes spent excessive time trying to
help (not that I am obliged, but sometimes if it's a good cause I want to)
find an entrant who used an alias and a free email address (or just simply
an old address - recall some entries are more than ten years old). In
today's world of spam-obliterated email accounts there's a good chance that
if I don't have some other means of cross-referencing them I won't be able
to find them.

For that reason, I'd prefer that registration provide some information (not
to be released to the public) that would help the competition locate an
entrant at some point in the future, if their last known email address
bounces or goes unanswered. This could be a phone number, postal address,
parents address, or really anything - voluntarily supplied for this purpose.

I'd also suggest that if entrants have a 'private' email address that they
don't give out to the public but don't mind giving to the admins, that they
do so as well, via the registration system. One that they are less likely
to change, for example.

Here's an example of why it's good to have additional contact information:
while it doesn't apply to the IRTC as we won't be awarding prizes as a
regular thing, it's nevertheless worth mentioning.

There was one entry in POVCOMP where the author had done everything other
than push the 'final button' (as it were) that clicks an image over from
being a 'work in progress' (which he could update or edit), and makes it a
'final' (locked) entry. The action of doing so also requires them to agree
to some rules and copyright stuff, so it's important and can't be done on
their behalf by an admin.

This entry was - in my personal opinion - very worthwhile and would (again
IMO) certainly have won one of the prizes. The auto-reminder system wrote
the author to tell him about the problem. I also manually emailed him more
than once (perhaps even three times). No reply. So the competition closed
without his entry, and he missed out on a prize.

Later on, when the results were announced, he turned up in the newsgroup
expressing surprise that his entry wasn't even in the competition. He
*then* found that his spam filter had snarfed all of the competition's mail
to him, and it was in fact still sitting unread in his spam folder.

Of course having a second email address won't necessarily fix that, but it
does point out the fact that if we want to contact you, it's not in these
days enough to rely on email. It's just not reliable anymore due to spam.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Ciekawe czy David Buck naprawd� uwa�a, �e :

>     - Registration will capture home address and phone number
>
Home address?
Hm, I'm affraid, this can hold back people from registering...

> David Buck

Slawek
-- 
  ________ When the lusers ring! When the pager beeps! And at 3am they call.
_/ __/ __/ I simply remember I'm the BOFH, And rm -r... them all.(Steve Shipway)
 \__ \__ \_______________________________________________________________
 /___/___/ S�awomir Szczyrba                          steev/AT/hot\dot\pl

Post a reply to this message

Further to my other comments, I'd like to add this:

It would be neat if in the image submission process, the entrant could (via
some click-through legalese) agree that the competition admins may, at
their discretion, choose to grant third-party requests for non-commercial
use of their entry if reasonable attempts to contact them fail*. Or have it
the other way around; make this a default condition of registration/entry
and require them to opt out of it if they do not wish to do so.

FWIW, permission for use was by far the most common request we received on
the IRTC admin mailing list. It would be nice if there was a neat way to
handle this, given that in my experience most entrants were happy for their
work to be used in a reasonable non-commercial way provided they are credited.

-- Chris

* or even let them specify, if they wish, that we don't need to attempt
  to contact them.

Post a reply to this message

Fa3ien wrote:
> David Buck a écrit :
>>    - 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.

Yes, I've seen the post and the graphs.  I thought carefully about the 
charts and the graphs.  Here's my problem:  Currently we have 6 awards - 
1st, 2nd, 3rd, Technical, Artistic and Concept.  Do we continue to give 
6 awards?  We can reduce to one ranking per picture if we drop the last 
3 awards. If you want to provide the last three (automated) awards, how 
do you propose we award them with only one rank?

In terms of voting time, I'll be using a star-rating control where you 
click on one of 10 stars to vote.  Since I'm proposing that we require 
voters to write a comment for each submission, typing the comments will 
take far longer than the voting itself.

Do you have a proposal on how many awards to give and how to calculate them?

I'm looking for constructive comments on the voting system.  Please, if 
you're going to criticize something I proposed please offer your version 
of an alternative.  As I said, I can't satisfy everyone and I'm doing my 
best to get public input while still keeping the spirit of the competition.

David

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> I'd opt for a strong recommendation to leave comments for as
> many images as possible, enforcing comments for extreme votes
> (you can't very well rate an image as 1,2,9 or 10 without
> having something to say about it), and possibly requiring
> a certain minimum number of comments (like 20%?).

This proposal has a lot of merit IMO.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> a écrit dans 
le message de news: 47d65931@news.povray.org...
> Thanks for the proposal David.
>
>  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]

That seems more relevant than the old category system. The "education value" 
sounds like karma points ;) That would make possible, for instance, to 
reward people for making the source code available (or models and textures 
provided in compatible formats) while keeping it separate from the judgement 
itself.

> 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.

It's not crude at all but a well-recognized statistical procedure.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncated_mean
One could remove the top and bottom 5% of the votes for instance.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> permission to use an IRTC image for a good cause, and to have to refuse

[following up to self to clarify]

not technically 'refuse', since I don't have the right to give permission
in any event (except in certain very specific circumstances). so while I
can't actually 'refuse', it still feels like it when I say I can't help;[

Post a reply to this message

David Buck wrote:

> 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Technical, Artistic and Concept

I've always liked the concept of these 6 awards. But, of course,
if the correlation is as high as demonstrated in the graphs, it
will in most cases be just another name for places 4 to 6.

How about something along the lines of the old prebuilt comment
checkboxes (most notable for ...)? Give only one vote for each
image, but provide optional checkboxes

[ ] Wow, outstanding technical merit
[ ] Wow, outstanding artistic merit
[ ] Wow, outstanding concept / interpretation of topic

Use a simple "wow count" to award the honourable mentions
among non-placed entries (regular vote as tie-breaker).

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> David Buck wrote:
> 
>> 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Technical, Artistic and Concept
> 
> I've always liked the concept of these 6 awards. But, of course,
> if the correlation is as high as demonstrated in the graphs, it
> will in most cases be just another name for places 4 to 6.
> 
> How about something along the lines of the old prebuilt comment
> checkboxes (most notable for ...)? Give only one vote for each
> image, but provide optional checkboxes
> 
> [ ] Wow, outstanding technical merit
> [ ] Wow, outstanding artistic merit
> [ ] Wow, outstanding concept / interpretation of topic
> 
> Use a simple "wow count" to award the honourable mentions
> among non-placed entries (regular vote as tie-breaker).


I could certainly go for this proposal.  It doesn't reduce click time 
(one box vs. one star) but it could make the voting easier.


Would people prefer this?

David Buck

Post a reply to this message

S�awomir Szczyrba wrote:
> Ciekawe czy David Buck naprawd� uwa�a, �e :
> 
>>     - Registration will capture home address and phone number
>>
> Home address?
> Hm, I'm affraid, this can hold back people from registering...
> 
>> David Buck
> 
> Slawek

You are registering in order to be able to submit images.  My impression 
from the feedback here (especially from Chris Cason) is that he really 
wants to know who submitted the images and is able to contact them later 
for permission for third party use of the images and other things.

I realize that home address and phone number aren't guaranteed to be 
able to locate someone, but it's better than just an e-mail address.

Again, I'll throw the question back.  If you feel that asking for 
contact information would hold people back from registering, what do you 
propose as an alternative?

I'm trying to address two concerns here.  First, for the purposes of 
using the images outside the scope of the IRTC such as CD-ROMS and 
requests from third parties, we need to be able to contact the artists. 
  If we can't contact the artist, then we can't grant certain requests.

Second, by providing better contact information, it becomes more 
difficult (but certainly not impossible) for someone to spam the contest 
with entries from fake identities.  It's easy to get e-mail addresses. 
Someone could submit 10 images (perhaps poor quality or token 
submissions) to 3 contests using fake e-mail addresses for each then get 
30 votes for the next rounds.

Positive suggestions on how to address these concerns would help us out.

Thanks
David Buck

Post a reply to this message

Given the caliber of the people involved in this project, this comment is
probably unnecessary, but I feel so strongly about it that I’m going to take
the time to make it anyway.  Some of the private information that I provided to
the old IRTC and TC-RTC in the understanding that it would be used privately by
the Admins now turns up on a Google search for anyone to read. If my address
and phone number were to similarly be put out in the open for public viewing, I
would be quite displeased.  Explicit assurances in this regard would be
appreciated. Also, I’d be willing to give out this information for private
Admin use only because experience with the people involved has given me reason
to trust them.  If I had just stumbled upon the IRTC anew and was told that
giving out my address and phone number were conditions for participating, I
would very likely suspect the worst and decline to enter.  Please consider
requiring just a valid email address with a stipulation that if one wins
anything, a physical address to which the prize is to be sent must be provided
to the Admins within X number of days or the prize is forfeit.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

BOFH excuse 156: Zombie processes haunting David Buck
> Again, I'll throw the question back.  If you feel that asking for 
> contact information would hold people back from registering, what do you 
> propose as an alternative?
>
Confirmed e-mail.
And possibility to fill remaining data up when needed (prizes, shopping etc.)

> I'm trying to address two concerns here.  First, for the purposes of 
> using the images outside the scope of the IRTC such as CD-ROMS and 
> requests from third parties, we need to be able to contact the artists. 
>   If we can't contact the artist, then we can't grant certain requests.
>
Sure. But there is no easy way to confirm snail mail (well, you can send me
a postcard, of course, and wait for answer ;)
Phone number can be easy confirmed... but this can cost a plenty.

> Second, by providing better contact information, it becomes more 
> difficult (but certainly not impossible) for someone to spam the contest 
> with entries from fake identities.  It's easy to get e-mail addresses. 
>
It's easy to take a fake 'home address'.

> Someone could submit 10 images (perhaps poor quality or token 
> submissions) to 3 contests using fake e-mail addresses for each then get 
> 30 votes for the next rounds.
>
I can wrote 10 real 'street addresses' in no time.
Working phone number costs me between $0 (voip) and $2.5 (gsm,voip)...

> David Buck

Slawek
-- 
  ________ 
_/ __/ __/ []to taki wiesz... telnet... taki prymitywny outlook:P - Kanusia
 \__ \__ \_______________________________________________________________
 /___/___/ S�awomir Szczyrba                          steev/AT/hot\dot\pl

Post a reply to this message

David Buck escribió:
> I could certainly go for this proposal.  It doesn't reduce click time 
> (one box vs. one star) but it could make the voting easier.

And a checkbox is even easier since I can click anywhere on the text 
too. You *will* use <label>, won't you? >:)

Post a reply to this message

S�awomir Szczyrba wrote:
> BOFH excuse 156: Zombie processes haunting David Buck
>> Again, I'll throw the question back.  If you feel that asking for 
>> contact information would hold people back from registering, what do you 
>> propose as an alternative?
>>
> Confirmed e-mail.
> And possibility to fill remaining data up when needed (prizes, shopping etc.)
> 
>> I'm trying to address two concerns here.  First, for the purposes of 
>> using the images outside the scope of the IRTC such as CD-ROMS and 
>> requests from third parties, we need to be able to contact the artists. 
>>   If we can't contact the artist, then we can't grant certain requests.
>>
> Sure. But there is no easy way to confirm snail mail (well, you can send me
> a postcard, of course, and wait for answer ;)
> Phone number can be easy confirmed... but this can cost a plenty.
> 
>> Second, by providing better contact information, it becomes more 
>> difficult (but certainly not impossible) for someone to spam the contest 
>> with entries from fake identities.  It's easy to get e-mail addresses. 
>>
> It's easy to take a fake 'home address'.
> 
>> Someone could submit 10 images (perhaps poor quality or token 
>> submissions) to 3 contests using fake e-mail addresses for each then get 
>> 30 votes for the next rounds.
>>
> I can wrote 10 real 'street addresses' in no time.
> Working phone number costs me between $0 (voip) and $2.5 (gsm,voip)...
> 
>> David Buck
> 
> Slawek


Ok, I can make the home address and phone numbers optional and only 
require an e-mail confirmation.  When you register, you will receive an 
account that would allow you to update this information or remove this 
information any time you like.  Changing it later shouldn't be a problem.

I will, however, include a check box (or a few options) to say that you 
approve the use of this image in the IRTC CD-ROM and/or interested third 
parties.

Thanks again for the constructive feedback.

David

Post a reply to this message

"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> schreef in bericht 
news:47d6a4ec$1@news.povray.org...

>
> Ok, I can make the home address and phone numbers optional and only 
> require an e-mail confirmation.  When you register, you will receive an 
> account that would allow you to update this information or remove this 
> information any time you like.  Changing it later shouldn't be a problem.
>
> I will, however, include a check box (or a few options) to say that you 
> approve the use of this image in the IRTC CD-ROM and/or interested third 
> parties.
>

I think this is the best solution indeed.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> schreef in 
bericht news:47d66069@news.povray.org...
> Further to my other comments, I'd like to add this:
>
> It would be neat if in the image submission process, the entrant could 
> (via
> some click-through legalese) agree that the competition admins may, at
> their discretion, choose to grant third-party requests for non-commercial
> use of their entry if reasonable attempts to contact them fail*. Or have 
> it
> the other way around; make this a default condition of registration/entry
> and require them to opt out of it if they do not wish to do so.
>
> FWIW, permission for use was by far the most common request we received on
> the IRTC admin mailing list. It would be nice if there was a neat way to
> handle this, given that in my experience most entrants were happy for 
> their
> work to be used in a reasonable non-commercial way provided they are 
> credited.
>
> -- Chris
>
> * or even let them specify, if they wish, that we don't need to attempt
>  to contact them.

I think your proposal would cover the issue. I agree.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> a écrit dans 
le message de news: 47d66069@news.povray.org...

> It would be neat if in the image submission process, the entrant could 
> (via
> some click-through legalese) agree that the competition admins may, at
> their discretion, choose to grant third-party requests for non-commercial
> use of their entry if reasonable attempts to contact them fail*. Or have 
> it
> the other way around; make this a default condition of registration/entry
> and require them to opt out of it if they do not wish to do so.

IANAL, but this seems much too vague from a legal point of view. It would be 
preferable to let users choose between existing, well-established licenses 
that already have formal definitions, terms and conditions. That would also 
simplify image use for third parties. See for instance how Wikimedia Commons 
handles this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht 
news:web.47d6897a5c79dc2573e406e60@news.povray.org...
> Given the caliber of the people involved in this project, this comment is
> probably unnecessary, but I feel so strongly about it that I'm going to 
> take
> the time to make it anyway.  Some of the private information that I 
> provided to
> the old IRTC and TC-RTC in the understanding that it would be used 
> privately by
> the Admins now turns up on a Google search for anyone to read. If my 
> address
> and phone number were to similarly be put out in the open for public 
> viewing, I
> would be quite displeased.  Explicit assurances in this regard would be
> appreciated. Also, I'd be willing to give out this information for private
> Admin use only because experience with the people involved has given me 
> reason
> to trust them.  If I had just stumbled upon the IRTC anew and was told 
> that
> giving out my address and phone number were conditions for participating, 
> I
> would very likely suspect the worst and decline to enter.  Please consider
> requiring just a valid email address with a stipulation that if one wins
> anything, a physical address to which the prize is to be sent must be 
> provided
> to the Admins within X number of days or the prize is forfeit.
>

I very strongly agree with this!!!!
Thanks Mike for putting also my own concerns so clearly.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I've read through all of the proposals here David, and first let me say that I
like the system as it is coming.

I agree with the choice of making an address optional, but IMO, you should put
some sort of disclaimer underneath it.

If I were to write said disclaimer, it would be "A home address is optional, but
if provided, will only be used to mail you a prize in the case of winning a
round.  This information may be provided later, if you wish"

In this manner, people know why they are being asked, and what happens if they
don't give it right away.  I just thought I'd make a point of this.

My second point, I think that the voting system in post one works the best.  I
always liked the system of voting in three categories, partly because I once
received an 8 in one category, while recieving 6's in the others.  Granted
that's not a big difference, but I think it allows for some flexibility.  Also,
I know I'm probably all not right in my train of thought, but, just my line of
the code.

As for the comments, I think they should be on the basis of optional, but highly
recommended.  I remember in one voting round with 25 images, It took at least an
hour and a half to write out all 24 comments (myself excluded), and I had
nothing else to do.  Comments do take a while, and I'll proabably still be
happy to sit out and write them for a couple hours, but there are those out
there who may not have time, and therefore be dissapointed that their votes
won't count because they didn't have time to spare to write out comments.
Again, it's just my line of code.

Any thoughts, David, or anyone else?

Post a reply to this message

David Buck wrote:

>    - Voters don't see who submitted the image until voting is finished

There are some artists whose views in p.o-t are enormously unpopular, 
and the low esteem the consequently enjoy may spill over into the voting.

On the other hand, some artists don't need their names on their work in 
order to be identifiable.

>    - Every voter must provide a comment on each image they vote on
>       - Voting is a privilege and a responsibility
>       - Providing constructive comments helps everyone
>       - The submitters put a lot of effort into their work, the
>          voters should respect that with appropriate comments

Granted, although comments will often be rote entries unless a human 
being reviews the comments.

> Does this sound reasonable?

It all looks fine to me, not much different from the old rules.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> 
wrote in message news:47d6615d@news.povray.org...
> Chris Cason wrote:
>> permission to use an IRTC image for a good cause, and to have to 
>> refuse
>
> [following up to self to clarify]
>
> not technically 'refuse', since I don't have the right to give 
> permission
> in any event (except in certain very specific circumstances). so 
> while I
> can't actually 'refuse', it still feels like it when I say I 
> can't help;[

I think it would be trivial to include some option fields in the
registration/entry form that presents options such as:

do you reply to all permission to use requests with NO
contact info: xxx xxx

etc. - simple response engine incorporating above parameters

lots of permutations there - as long as a db is being used
it might be wise to use it

Post a reply to this message

Given Gilles' graph, I suggest:

1) A simple scale of 1 to 10.
2) Everyone gets to nominate one image for an honorable mention of Artistic,
Technical, Theme, etc.  Entrants can win more than one, but voters must choose
a separate entry for each mention.
3) Forcing comments will elicit poorly-thought-out comments.  So don't.


As far as addresses and phone numbers, IANAL, but I wonder if there were some
countries where this could be a problem for you to obtain the address and phone
number of minors, even if you do so by an online form where they say they are of
age. And I trust Chris and David "today", but with mission drift over a decade
I'm sure that data is going to get spilled somehow somewhere along the way.

I would encourage the kind of folks that Paul Bourke was getting as judges to
register as voters.  I think it would be cool to have some people with taste
who don't necessarily know that much about ray tracing.

Post a reply to this message

Nimish Ajmani wrote:
> If I were to write said disclaimer, it would be "A home address is optional, but
> if provided, will only be used to mail you a prize in the case of winning a
> round.  This information may be provided later, if you wish"

Why is everyone focusing on the "prize" aspect, when we don't even know 
that there will *be* prizes, and it has been repeatedly stated that the 
*contact* information is for *contacting* people?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.47d71dff5c79dc258ff951eb0@news.povray.org...
>
>
> As far as addresses and phone numbers, IANAL, but I wonder if there were 
> some
> countries where this could be a problem for you to obtain the address and 
> phone
> number of minors, even if you do so by an online form where they say they 
> are of
> age. And I trust Chris and David "today", but with mission drift over a 
> decade
> I'm sure that data is going to get spilled somehow somewhere along the 
> way.
>
IMO, it is not only a question concerning minors, it is just a question of 
privacy. My phone number, for instance is not available publicly here by 
deliberate choice.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> schreef in bericht 
> news:web.47d71dff5c79dc258ff951eb0@news.povray.org...
>>
>> As far as addresses and phone numbers, IANAL, but I wonder if there were 
>> some
>> countries where this could be a problem for you to obtain the address and 
>> phone
>> number of minors, even if you do so by an online form where they say they 
>> are of
>> age. And I trust Chris and David "today", but with mission drift over a 
>> decade
>> I'm sure that data is going to get spilled somehow somewhere along the 
>> way.
>>
> IMO, it is not only a question concerning minors, it is just a question of 
> privacy. My phone number, for instance is not available publicly here by 
> deliberate choice.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 

I've come to agree with the privacy concerns.  Even though the intent 
was always to keep that information private and visible only to IRTC 
admins, it does cause too many privacy concerns.

I will make the section optional and add a note explaining that it is 
optional and how it would be used if provided.

E-mail confirmation will be required.

David

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Given the caliber of the people involved in this project, this comment is
> probably unnecessary, but I feel so strongly about it that I’m going to take
> the time to make it anyway.  Some of the private information that I provided to
> the old IRTC and TC-RTC in the understanding that it would be used privately by
> the Admins now turns up on a Google search for anyone to read. If my address

Can you give me an example of this with respect to the IRTC?

To my recollection the IRTC had no 'private' information in the submission
process. I'm curious to know what it is that you say has turned up that
should not have.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> schreef in bericht 
news:47d7b11b$1@news.povray.org...

>
> I've come to agree with the privacy concerns.  Even though the intent was 
> always to keep that information private and visible only to IRTC admins, 
> it does cause too many privacy concerns.
>
> I will make the section optional and add a note explaining that it is 
> optional and how it would be used if provided.
>
> E-mail confirmation will be required.
>

Fine. Thank you indeed David. I think this answers the concern.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

David Buck a écrit :
> Fa3ien wrote:
>> David Buck a écrit :
>>>    - 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.
> 
> Yes, I've seen the post and the graphs.  I thought carefully about the 
> charts and the graphs.  Here's my problem:  Currently we have 6 awards - 
> 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Technical, Artistic and Concept.  Do we continue to give 
> 6 awards?  We can reduce to one ranking per picture if we drop the last 
> 3 awards. If you want to provide the last three (automated) awards, how 
> do you propose we award them with only one rank?

I would suggest to make 1st, 2nd and 3rd awards automatic, based on a
single note for each image/voter, and use a small jury (3 or 4 people) 
to award the T-A-C mentions.

The "cross-contamination" "problem" has been discussed so many times
over the years, and
1) there's no solution
2) it tends to show that the TAC separation is pretty artificial

There is no "granularity" to be gained from TAC, so, going for simple
and efficient seems the best to me.

> I'm looking for constructive comments on the voting system.  Please, if 
> you're going to criticize something I proposed please offer your version 
> of an alternative.  As I said, I can't satisfy everyone and I'm doing my 
> best to get public input while still keeping the spirit of the competition.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was suggesting a single note.
Hope I've been clearer now.

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> Mike the Elder wrote:
> > Given the caliber of the people involved in this project, this comment is
> > probably unnecessary, but I feel so strongly about it that I’m going to take
> > the time to make it anyway.  Some of the private information that I provided to
> > the old IRTC and TC-RTC in the understanding that it would be used privately by
> > the Admins now turns up on a Google search for anyone to read. If my address
>
> Can you give me an example of this with respect to the IRTC?
>
> To my recollection the IRTC had no 'private' information in the submission
> process. I'm curious to know what it is that you say has turned up that
> should not have.
>
> -- Chris


In the case of the IRTC proper, (and this may be the result of my not having
read carefully enough) my actual first name and last name turns up in the
results and, consequently, my entries turn up in a in a Google search of my
name.  ( a fairly minimal exposure to potentially malicious activities on the
part of those so inclined I grant you)

In the case of the TC-RTC, a fairly private email address (the one which I use
for POV-Ray and other fairly serious graphics contacts... .i.e. not a "throw
away") turns up alongside my name.

Although I try not to be the "paranoid sort" with regard to life in general,
I've seen SO MUCH pettiness, vindictiveness and all around nastiness on the
Internet, that I've (reluctantly) adopted the practice of going to relative
extremes when it comes to maintaining my privacy in public forums.  I did NOT
mean to imply that the IRTC has acted irresponsibly in this regard, only to
urge those involved in setting up the new IRTC to take privacy issues
seriously.  Thanks for your concerned reply.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

"Fa3ien" <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47d82884@news.povray.org...
> I would suggest to make 1st, 2nd and 3rd awards automatic, based on a
> single note for each image/voter, and use a small jury (3 or 4 people) to 
> award the T-A-C mentions.

One possibility would be to get rid of Technical/Artistic/Conceptual 
mentions altogether but entitle the panel judges to award mentions on 
whatever criteria they want, like the "special mentions" in the Cannes Film 
Festival.
For instance one entrant in the POVCOMP was a little girl. It was difficult 
to rank her image with the rest but on the other hand her image had a real 
value (for instance it showed that POV-Ray and Moray could be used for 
educational purpose, even with young children). I also remember several IRTC 
entries created with self-made raytracers.
A "special mentions" system would allow the jury to reward images that would 
be significant in some way or another, in fact for any reason that could 
have a particular value beside the overall image quality.

Ideally, voters should be able to have their say here too but I'm not really 
sure of the correct method to do that. There could be some sort of 
"flagging" system associated with tags, for instance. Images that would be 
flagged by enough people for similar reasons could then receive special 
awards.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.47d8368e5c79dc2573e406e60@news.povray.org...

> In the case of the TC-RTC, a fairly private email address (the one which I 
> use
> for POV-Ray and other fairly serious graphics contacts... .i.e. not a 
> "throw
> away") turns up alongside my name.

     Was that the reason for pulling out? The above that you mention is 
designed *not* to happen, but if you say it has happened, then can you show 
me where or how? <email me if you want, you know my address>

>
> Although I try not to be the "paranoid sort" with regard to life in 
> general,
> I've seen SO MUCH pettiness, vindictiveness and all around nastiness on 
> the
> Internet, that I've (reluctantly) adopted the practice of going to 
> relative
> extremes when it comes to maintaining my privacy in public forums.

      You should ignore Flaming Forums(tm). I do. Seen it myself many many 
times, as much as anyone else here has too probably. Read them, yes, but 
just ignore them.

   Best regards Mike,

       Steve

>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
 > It would be neat if in the image submission process, the entrant
could (via
> some click-through legalese) agree that the competition admins may, at
> their discretion, choose to grant third-party requests for non-commercial
> use of their entry if reasonable attempts to contact them fail*. Or have it
> the other way around; make this a default condition of registration/entry
> and require them to opt out of it if they do not wish to do so.

I have to agree with Gilles, it's too vague just like that. While a lot
of us POV-Ray users seem happy to share macros, textures, and final
pictures, I've gotten the impression from some other graphics forums
that the sentiment doesn't carry over to the larger commercial software.
Having the default be to allow third-party use might scare off some
users who do graphics for their professional work as well, since there
is then the large company's question of whether they can use that work
or not if they hire that person.*

Having the licenses be optional would be nice. Offers the best of both
worlds. So would allowing a link to the creator's home page where they
might provide more information about licensing the picture. But that
opens up the possibility of having those pages turned to spam at a later
date.

*It's not a good question from the corporations, but look at the FUD
about the GPL and CC licenses that keeps getting printed. It won't scare
off anyone who knows better, but it may scare off the people who don't
want to read all of the licenses.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> David Buck wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Of course we could always ask at the time. Honestly, provision of an
> address is not deterrent for someone who wants to cheat since they'd just
> make one up. However, that said, I think a contact address should be
> provided, but for a different reason.
> 
> Do you know how *frustrating* it is to have someone contact you to ask
> permission to use an IRTC image for a good cause, and to have to refuse
> because you can't contact the author?
> 
> I do [:-(

Has no one else moved in the last 10 years? I've lived in at least three
different places, and trying to use any but the current address would
probably result in "return to sender". While it's a nice idea, other
then prizes, what does it actually solve?

> I'd also suggest that if entrants have a 'private' email address that they
> don't give out to the public but don't mind giving to the admins, that they
> do so as well, via the registration system. One that they are less likely
> to change, for example.
> 

This sounds like a good idea. However, again, 10 years ago I had an
email address that was 'private' and only given out to a few people. The
company that offered it went under about 8 years ago, and that address
is gone. The domain still exists, but I have no idea who is on the
receiving end of any email sent there and trusting that unknown person
with the authorization to release an image to a company is slightly
scary to me.

Public key signatures could prevent that, but that's another layer of
information to 'require' just to keep you from having to say 'No' to
someone who wants the image.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

> Has no one else moved in the last 10 years? I've lived in at least three
> different places, and trying to use any but the current address would
> probably result in "return to sender". While it's a nice idea, other
> then prizes, what does it actually solve?

I have the same problem. In the last 10 years I’ve lived at 8 different
addresses in six different countries. The only stability has been keeping the
same mobile phone number and email address for the last eight years. Hence the
reason I’m still with AOL :-(.
I’m also planning to move again soon

Post a reply to this message

>       - A voter must rank all images (except their own)
>    - Every voter must provide a comment on each image they vote on

What happens if a large number of images are submitted, say 100, 200, 500 
etc?  How many people will be prepared to spend the time to sit down and 
look, vote and comment on that many images?

On a related note, it should be as easy and fast as possible to vote on 
images using the web.  eg You choose what resolution pictures you want to 
see, then each image is shown to you in turn with boxes at the bottom to 
select your score and enter your comments.  And it should be possible to 
come back later and continue voting before finally clicking the "submit my 
votes" button.

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> "Mike" == Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail> writes:

Mike> In the case of the TC-RTC, a fairly private email address (the one which
Mike> I use for POV-Ray and other fairly serious graphics
Mike> contacts... .i.e. not a "throw away") turns up alongside my name.

Clearly any data gathering needs to distinguish the private address
from the public address (perhaps even "none").

-- 
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

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47d84f25@news.povray.org...
>
> "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
> news:web.47d8368e5c79dc2573e406e60@news.povray.org...
>
>> In the case of the TC-RTC, a fairly private email address (the one which 
>> I use
>> for POV-Ray and other fairly serious graphics contacts... .i.e. not a 
>> "throw
>> away") turns up alongside my name.
>
>     Was that the reason for pulling out? The above that you mention is 
> designed *not* to happen, but if you say it has happened, then can you 
> show me where or how? <email me if you want, you know my address>

     Ok, I've spotted enough today to see what you mean (even though I 
couldn't find _any_ reference to yourself anywhere - maybe my search terms 
weren't good enough). But, I don't find this as a serious issue because at 
the end of the day, why would you use a private email address to register 
for a 3D rendering competition? Forgive me for my ignorance, but isn't the 
Big G just one Helluva Big web crawler? Sure, if you publish something, then 
yes, it's going to be on Google somewhere.

   However, what I will do, is delete the email field in the fields below an 
entrants' main image, but imo, this is a shame because a valid email 
address, (private or 'throw away' but valid) is historically used so that 
other members/people* can contact them personally if they so want to discuss 
possible solutions to problems within the image**. I'm also a member of the 
Crysis(tm) (EA/Crytek game) forums, and there, you get the choice to show 
your email or not, so I'll get this instigated if possible.

   * Those people possibly being high-end commercial users who know a thing 
or two about rendering a good image.

   ** Is this still a valid option? Would people still do this today (email 
someone) out-of-the-blue to offer help, or would a forum within the website 
be of more help? If so, then there's no need to show an email address 
anywhere unless you request it. Thoughts?

    Anyway, this is o-t here, so if that last question can get answered with 
some help/opinions, this will be the last time I post here in this thread.

       Steve


>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Mike C.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Randal L. Schwartz" <mer### [at] stonehengecom> wrote in message 
news:86b### [at] bluestonehengecom...
>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail> writes:
>
> Mike> In the case of the TC-RTC, a fairly private email address (the one 
> which
> Mike> I use for POV-Ray and other fairly serious graphics
> Mike> contacts... .i.e. not a "throw away") turns up alongside my name.
>
> Clearly any data gathering needs to distinguish the private address
> from the public address (perhaps even "none").

   Cool. Kind of like I've just mentioned above in reply to MikeC. And, I 
didn't read your above answer before I posted that.   :)

       ~Steve~




>
> -- 
> 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

Mike the Elder wrote:
> In the case of the TC-RTC, a fairly private email address (the one which I use
> for POV-Ray and other fairly serious graphics contacts... .i.e. not a "throw
> away") turns up alongside my name.

Well, whatever you put in the submission form ends up on the website - the
IRTC never promised that any information in the submission template would
be redacted. The submission forms were always provided along with the entry
(this goes back to the first days of the IRTC in the 1990's). So I don't
think anyone should be surprised at that. I realise it's not desirable but
it's a historical fact.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message