"Hildur K." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I have finished voting for this test round and I have a few thoughts about this
> which I like to bring up.
>
> In the past the voting, as most people here are aware of, was based on three
> different scores, Artistic, Technical and Interpretation of the Topic. The
> score was given on a scale from 1-20.
>

> discussion about changing this and I am not sure it is a good idea.
>
> Firstly, the way I used to cast my vote was based on the three categories, and
> rarely, if ever, would I give the same number in each category. I think this
> gives a much more accurate result as each category is valuated independently
> and also the numbers from 1-20 give room for a much tighter and accurate score.
>
> Secondly, most of the people who participate are amateurs who are in the process
> of learning. Receiving votes in 3 different categories is a great help to them
> to see how to improve their work. Receiving only an overall score 0-10 does not
> tell people much about how they did well and what needs to be improved. Only a
> few people have time to write comments and those few comments are often sketchy

>
> Thirdly, to keep the continuity of the IRTC, the scoring system should at least
> be compatible to the past. I have no idea if the IRTC statistics page
> (http://exether.free.fr/irtc/) will be continued, but I have no reason to think
> it is not. By changing the scoring to only one overall, continuing this project
> is impossible.
>
> In the old system, there also was a little chance for a tie, as no two people
> would ever receive the precise same number of votes.
>
> So why was this changed and who made this decision? Or is the voting system
> still under construction in this test round?

I too would like to agree with the aforementioned.  Speaking from the amateur's
point of view, the individualized scoring helped a great deal more on my first
submissions than did the (at times nonexistent) comments.  In addition,
personally I am finding it rather difficult to vote on a pure basis from one to
ten, and find myself giving a score in the three categories and averaging them.

I don't mean to sound complaining, but I do think that the old three category
system worked better.  In addition, nomination for the merits seems a bit
flawed, as there are some people who (and I hope this won't hold true anymore)
would sometimes just give the Notable For: checkboxes in comments their check,
without truly understanding.  Naturally this did not effect the honorable
mentions, but with the new system, this problem seems to arise.

Just my two lines of code (or polygons technically as I work in lightwave)

Nimish

Post a reply to this message