Re: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #159

[krandall@world.std.com]

At 04:12 AM 8/11/99 -0700, Erik wrote:
>Subject: Re: Mock Judging results

>I was talking to my wife about this one, and she said something very
>sensible: "Did at least one of the judges disqualify it?"  If only one
>does, there we go.  End of story.  Seriously, I don't think we need to
>make this "pre-screening" thing a big issue.  Just let the judges know
>that's one of the rules. 

I agree.  As with "photo" backgrounds, I strongly believe that how it
should be handled should depend on presentation.  If the "fake" is done so
carefully that it can't be detected by the judges, then what difference
does it really make?  If it's obvious, in the case of computer generate or
altered images, they can be disqualified.  (If the judges are not in
agreement on whether it is a fake, let them discuss it and decide as a
group)  If we're talking about a photo background, does it add or detract
from the overall look of the tank?  I the case of entry #4, IMO it was
distracting and lessened the impact of the aquascape.  I marked it
accordingly.  Others disagreed, and marked it accordingly.  If this wasn't
subjective, we wouldn't need judges at all.<g>

Re: combined scores:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, James Purchase 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.
>
>
>You can never guarantee this.  All judges will have their own approach.
>You can only ask them to be consistent, and try to use the full range.

OK, time out.  No one else here see a _major_ problem with combining the
judges scores in the manner it has been done?  Look at tank #3.  It is
first on _5_ judges cards, 2nd on one, and 3rd on another.  Tank #4 is 2nd
on _4_ judges cards, and first on 3. (due to one judge who managed to tie 2
different sets of tanks... something else that needs to be addressed
separately)

I don't see how you can take a tank that is clearly favored by the majority
of the judges and move it into 2nd place because one judges scores throw a
contrived point or percentage system out of whack.

If you insist on using a point system to help the judges come to a decision
on which tanks they prefer, so be it.  Don't put the judges in the position
of knowing that if they skew the scores higher on their favorite tanks, the
tanks have a better shot of winning.  If the point system is simply a
guideline for picking (and justifying) placing, fine.  But combining scores
is meaningless and misleading. 

If you look at the results in terms of placing by the various judges, you
get a different, and IMO, fairer result.  I have left off tank #6 since we
mostly seem to agree it should be eliminated.  I'll try to duplicate my
calculation here, if the columns don't line up, you can fix it on your
screen.  


Entry # 1       2       3       4       5
Judge#
    1           5       4       1       2       3
    2           5       4       2       1       3
    3           5       3t      1t      1t      3t
    4           5       3       1       2       4
    5           5       4       1       2       3
    6           5       4       1       2       3

    7           4       2       3       1       

Because Judge 7 did not assign a score to tank #5, we need to do the place
calculations for the ENTIRE class leaving that judge's placing out.  I
think if a tank is going to be eliminated, it has to be a group decision.
In this case, whether we like the way the tank is "aquascaped" or not, I
don't see any way that it does not fit our criteria for submission.  It is
a real FW tank, and it's got "stuff" in it.

But if you add up the placings by each judge, you will get a total.  The
LOWEST total should be the winning tank, next lowest 2nd, etc.

In the above case, the totals for judges 1-6 look like this:

Tank#   1       2       3       4       5

Total           30      22      7       10      19

Place           5th     4th     1st     2nd     3rd

If you look at how the individual judges placed the tanks, I think this
accurately expresses the majority view.

Now, if you add in judge 7, leaving off the tank s/he didn't judge. It
looks like this:

Tank#           1       2       3       4

Total           34      24      10      11

Place           4       3       1       2

Now the fact that this judge scored differently than the others doesn't
change the placings for tanks 1 and 2 (of course 4th and 5th move to 3rd
and 4th because we've removed tank 5 from the group)  It should not be
possible for one judge with a very different opinion on one particular tank
to override the placings of the majority.

On to the subject of tied scores.  Judges should be instructed _not_ to tie
tanks.  If tanks tie once judges placings are combined, that is a different
matter.  The judges are there to CHOOSE   which tanks they like best and to
assign placings.  It's a tough job, but that is what a contest is about.<g>
 It is simple enough for the individual judges to still keep scores very
close, but assign placings just to add or subtract a single point somewhere
on the score.  The scores are very subjective, as we've seen.

In most juried competitions I've been involved with, a tied placing is sent
back to the group of judges.  Often, if they can discuss among themselves
their reasons for choosing one tank over another, they can reach a
consensus.  If not, there needs to be a designated tie-breaking judge,
usually, the judge considered by the organizers to be the most experienced.

Karen
  ------------------
  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