Re: Mock Judging results Part I

["Ken Guin" <kenguin@homemail.com>]

James wrote: >>>>Submission Guidelines Explicit statement that altered/faked
entries are NOT eligable for the contest. (Do we allow them in the
showcase???)<<

Ken writes: I think we could be chancing it if WE decided to exclude ANY
entry without first doing some investigation into a questionable entry.  A
simple telephone call or email to the entrant to ask him/her a few questions
about the authenticity of the entry should resolve the matter. Several
volunteers could easily handle the few that would be questionable (I would
volunteer to do this). However, we should make it VERY explicit that
altered/fake entries will not be acceptable.

James wrote: >> Clear guidelines provided on the number and viewpoint of
individual images in each submission.<<

Ken writes: Yes, definitely. To keep things simple, I suggest two, maybe
three photos at the most (with only one encouraged). One overall, frontal
shot and maybe two angled, front shots which some of the sides showing. All
photos should be within a short time frame of minutes, not days or months.

James wrote:>>- Tank details that should accompany entries.

Ken writes: I would make this optional. There is a current thread on the APD
concerning a tank that is supposedly doing great with somewhat unusual tank
parameters (e.g., low light, high phosphorus and nitrate levels). If the
tank looks great, why should we get into an argument over which are the best
parameters? However, I do think that tank details would be very educational
for the viewers. So, for that reason, I would encourage the entrants to
include them, BUT I would ask the judges to not take them into account
during judging.

James wrote: >>Judging Guidelines. Should entries be pre-screened for
altered/faked images BEFORE being passed to Judges?<<

Ken writes: If we go the route of sending the judges CDs, there is going to
have to be a some sort of pre-screening done along the way. I would hate to
think that we would dump everything on Erik and ask him to produce some
judgeable CDs from it all. I think we will need to have some sort of panel
to review (pre-screen) the entries. I really don't think we are going to get
that many altered/fake entries though. I just don't see that as being a
really big problem, and if it is, I think my earlier suggestion about
contacting the entrant would be reasonable.  However, I do think we need
someone (a panel?) to organize everything before it is burned onto a CD. I
see this as being our biggest coordination problem. We will need to decide
who receives them, how we centralize them (after being scanned, etc.). We
will also have to decide what we will do if we receive entries that don't
meet established criteria. For example, what happens if we ask for two
photos and we get four?. What do we do? Send them back, or pick the best of
the four? I see a lot of problems arising that will make good coordination
imperative. If we don't do this part right, I am afraid the whole thing will
collapse under it own weight. However, I don't see this as something we will
not be able to handle.

James wrote: >>- Should Criteria points be expanded upon so that ALL
Judges know exactly what we expect to be consided under each main point?
 (Jose posted  something regarding this last week (see message 00512, Aug.
4).<<

Ken writes: Absolutely.

James wrote: >>- Should we clarify how the Judges are to calculate their
"point scores"? Two of the test judges used non-standard schemes - to be
fair, ALL Judges should be working from the same base and using the SAME
yardstick. It is _my_ view that in anything rated like this, the scoring
range starts at 0 and ends at 100, not 0 to 10 or 50 to 100.<<

Ken writes: If the judges' scores are to be published, I think it would be
important that they judge on a 100 point scale. If a judge decides to rank
from 50 to 100, then they should have that option. I mean, how much worse
could an entry be than 50 points? I noticed on the mock judging, when the
obvious fake entry is eliminated, there was only one entry by one judge that
rated a score lower than 50 points. So, I don't see this as a problem. If we
decide for the judges to keep their scoring to themselves and just pick the
first, second, etc., it makes no difference what point scale they use.

James wrote: >> -The alternative might be to throw out "points" all together
and
just request the Judges to rate things as "Unacceptable", "Acceptable",
"Good", "Very Good", "Excellent". However, this could present problems with
deciding a clear winner in any particular Category.<<

Ken writes: I agree. And, for that reason, I suggest a 100 point system.
(part II to follow - I am having problems with my ISP).

Ken Guin
Arlington, VA


  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest