Karen's thoughts

["James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>]

Karen wrote, on "required vs suggested":
>Just don't make the _requirements_ too onerous, or you won't get any
entries.

James replies:
Perhaps I should re-post the information I think would be nice to have and
let the _group_ decide what should be mandatory, what should be suggested
and/or optional.

In response to the following, which I wrote:
>>People are always posting
>>asking about the missing "details" and a great deal of speculation takes
>>place because of it. If this is going to be of any value as a educational
>>tool for all of us I think that the issue of details about how the
aquascape
>>was put together is important (especially for the better ones).

Karen responded:
>The nice thing about this taking place over the Internet, is that for the
>most part, people can actually _ask_ those questions, and get an answer.
>Most of the participants will be right here, waiting to answer.

Ummmm...., I think that you misunderstood what I meant. When I wrote about
people looking for "missing details", I was referring more to the beautiful
images in Amano's books - the APD archives are full of questions and
speculation concerning how he set tanks up, how they are maintained and the
types of plants used. That was why we are requesting that entrant's provide
a range of details about their aquascapes. I am NOT proposing that we
publish the entrant's e-mail or street addresses (although I would like to
see City, State and Country shown - this started out after all as a way to
see how people in different areas approach aquascaping). If we were to give
out e-mail addresses this could be considered a breach of their privacy.

In response to the following, which I also wrote:
>>3. The contest organizers will collate the individual judges scores  and
>>will determine the ranking of entries within each category for each judge.
>>These rankings will be collated and used to determine the final ranking of
>>all the entries within the category.

Karen responded:
>Have the judges complete this step themselves.  They should do it anyway,
>to make sure they haven't created a tie.  They should also do it to make
>sure that their ranking of the entries really reflects their choices for
>placings.  Whoever is collating the scores should, of course, double check
>the judges' math, and any discrepancies can be returned to the judge for
>clarification.

Ummmm, in my discussions with Erik, who will be setting up a special section
of the web-site (or perhaps a separate web-site altogether), for the judges
to use for this purpose, he intends to do some custom programming which will
allow the judges to enter in their scores and record their comments for each
entry. Hopefully, this "programming" will allow for showing the judges just
what they entered and allow them to change/adjust anything before anything
is committed to the database. It should also allow for feedback like
automatic totals and such. The less human intervention required, the better.

Karen wrote:
>I don't think we've gotten to the point of making a decision of how many
>prizes to award per division of how many entries, but I think it is a
>decision that _must_ be made before the official release of contest rules
>and regs.  I think we should just make a decision that we can live with,
>and go with it THIS TIME. If it all goes well, and we want to do it again,
>we can adjust accordingly.

Actually, we haven't even really settled on how many
divisions/classes/categories we are going to have. I _thought_ we had
decided that we would sort out the entries once we received them, and set up
"like" categories at that time. We have no way of knowing what kinds of
aquascapes we are going to receive until we have actually done this at least
once.

Are you suggesting that we are going to have to work out at least a basic
"category framework" now? As you and Jim Capelle have more experience with
actual shows - I leave it to you to make suggestions as to what might be
appropriate. Just please keep it general enough and flexible enough to allow
for what we "might" get or "might not" get.

Karen wrote:
>Even if _all_ the entries in a division are
>pitiful by the judges standards, they _still_ made the effort to enter, and
>deserve to be placed in whatever order they fall in.  (let's call it an "A"
>for effort<g>)  Would we really want to put 4 or 5 images up on the web
>site with a note saying, "the judges thought all these entries were
>pathetic, and refused to award them any prizes"?  Not likely to win
>friends, but might very well influence people.<g>

Ummmm, I'm starting to feel like a third grader called up to the teacher's
desk.....

I laid that section out in that fashion to give the judges the freedom to
exercise THEIR judgement (as you had earlier recommended). If the judges
think that all entries in a category are crap, why give a 1st Prize? Just to
play nice to entrant's feelings? I don't think we are dealing with
children - we shouldn't have to suck up to anybody. In addition to
showcasing aquascapes, we are hopefully attempting to "raise the bar" and
help people improve their personal aquascaping by example. Why would we want
to award a 2nd rate effort, just because it was the only one entered in a
category?

There is no need to place any "note" on the web-site if something like this
happened - if the judges provide comments on the aquascapes there shouldn't
be any doubt as to _why_ things get passed over.

I'm not advocating here turning this thing into a cut throat, highly
competative event. We have been over that ground before and I think I have
stated where I stand on that issue. But we are providing people with the
option up front of entering the Showcase and NOT the Contest should they
feel that their aquascape not be of "competition quality", or they not be of
"cometative spirit". Should they take the chance to enter, they should be
prepared to win OR loose.

One way around this sort of thing, depending upon the number of entries
actually received, would be to issue individual "Certificates of
Participation" to EVERYBODY. We could thank them for participating and for
sharing their aquascaping efforts with the world. I had mentioned this
earlier, and it got shot down by Olga as being too much work. I think that
it would cost us a stamp but gain us a LOT of good will - and would bode
well increased participation in future years.

Karen wrote:
>We can have fairly nice rosette ribbons with triple streamers made for
>about $2 each plus set up charges. (we can even have the AGA logo put in
>the middle of the rosette for a minimal additional charge... about $30 if I
>remember correctly)  If we award to 3 places in each division, and agree
>that we won't make more than 20 divisions of not less than 3 (5?) entries,
>we're talking, even with set up charges, less than $200 For ribbons.  I
>suspect AGA won't have a problem with that figure.  I would give computer
>generated certificates for "honorable mentions", and let _those_ be at the
>discretion of the judges.

James responds:
Thanks for providing a "cost" figure for that sort of thing, I had no idea
how much satin cost <g>. Now, how much is it going to cost to mail them out?
(can't just stuff them into a business size envelope, they would get
wrinkled). I'm not being snarkey here - I honestly want to know.

Karen wrote:
>If we get later get manufacturers to "sponsor" their favorite divisions,
>they can award whatever other prizes they want to the winners in those
>divisions.

James responds:
Here we go with "divisions" again. As you have the experience with fish
shows, perhaps your input is more valuable here. My experience with
approaching companies for donations is limited to having done it for about
five years for various AIDS related charity events here in Toronto. When I
approach a company looking for their support, I explain the event and its
purpose, point out the benefits of their participation, both from the
organization's point of view and their point of view, and ask them to "cough
up" (not, of course, in so many words). Even for events which are basically
award shows, where prizes are awarded in various categories, I never give
companies the option of choosing where their donation will go. That is up to
the event organizers. Should the company not approve, of course it makes it
very difficult in future years to obtain a second donation. Quite often,
small donations from multiple companies will be grouped together to form a
more substantial "prize".

And by the way, ALL donors, receive a "thank you" letter and would get
acknowledged on the web-site.

Karen wrote:
>I wonder (as I have in the past) who these "experts" are, that they should
>be able to high handedly decide that no entry in a class "deserves" to be
>first. (or 2nd or 3rd)  James, I hope you don't feel that I'm jumping on
>you again, I'm not.  It's just that when I've made "gentle" observations,
>they seem to get lost in the shuffle.  So I'm speaking out, which is what
>you said you want us _all_ to do.  Make the judges fish or cut bait.  If we
>are giving them the authority to assign places, they should do so.

James responds:
Confusion confounds, I know.

Earlier, you said to pick the judges and let them do their jobs. If we don't
like their decisions, we don't ask them back in future years. We give them
the benefit of the doubt the first time around, but we also provide them
with our "Judging Criteria" and "Judging Guidelines" describing how we would
_like_ them to review the entries.

But as I point out above, if we are trying to have a "real contest" wherein
the "best" of what is entered is awarded even a piece of ribbon, that
aquascape should win on it's merits, not on a lack of other entries in any
particular category. Crap is still crap, whether there is one example or
twenty examples. We need not award mediocrity.

Now, as in the past, you wonder _where_ we are going to find creatures with
these god-like talents. Well, Id venture to suggest that they don't need to
be "experts". Our Criteria and Guidelines seemed to receive pretty much
unanimous support ten days ago.They should ensure that _anyone_ could act as
a judge. We have already battered around a list of possible judges - most of
the people who were suggested sound like they are pretty likely canditates
in my book - if they choose to do it.

We need at most five judges. I suggest that once this comes back from the
AGA MC that we contact the first five people on our preliminatry list and
see what they say. We continue down the list until we get five "yes"
responses.

And believe me, very little of what gets said by _anybody_ here gets lost in
the shuffle.

Karen wrote:
>If we are going to send prizes to people other than just ribbons and/or
>certificates, I'd bet my bottom dollar that the _big_ cost of this contest
>is going to be shipping all that stuff all over the world.

James replies:
Somewhere, someone mentioned that companies can probably issue "vouchers"
which we could mail to winners and they in turn could contact the companies
for their "prize". I agree that shipping cost for hordes of prizes would put
this out of the relm of the the possible, but surely to God we can award
SOME prizes - even if it is only to the "major" winners (like maybe, top 3
in the whole show). If we mail out things to winners that could be
"possibly" lost, doesn't the U.S. Postal Service has a "confirmation of
delivery" receipt system available? Canada Post does. I wouldn't worry about
non-delivery of a Certificate or a Ribbon as they could be replaced for
minimal cost, but anything which contained a merchandise voucher or anything
else of real value should go out "proof of delivery required".

Karen wrote:
>VISA is  _definitely_ not an option, particularly for non-AGA members.

James responds:
Having worked in retail, I know the kinds of  merchant levies that the banks
can charge small outfits. I didn't know the sort of arrangement that the AGA
had with it's bank.

On the brochure, it was a suggestion from Erik, and I still like it, but I
can see that it could be expensive. Placing the material on the web-site in
a format that it could be printed out by anybody on their home PC/printer
and then enlisting _their_ help in getting the word out, is a stroke of
genius.

On the Cost issue - my value of $1,000.00 tops was a shot in the dark - done
more to generate discussion than anything else. Like I said, mailing costs
are going to be the biggest expense and it *IS* the AGA which is requiring
us to be accessible to non-internet capable people.

Karen wrote, on the subject of benefit to the AGA:
>"Hope to generate" is the operative phrase here.  I don't think you can
>guarantee _any_ direct benefit to the general AGA membership from this
>project, although we would all like to believe this will be a huge success.

James replies:
I don't mean to be snarkey here, but if this is handled like _other_ AGA
ventures, I can see that you might be right. For example, I have been an AGA
member for a number of years, yet I don't recall any widespread announcement
of the _last_ AGA Photo Contest, and the Amazon Trip wasn't publicized far
enough in advance for many peole to make plans to be able to go. With 800
members, there is quite possible a _huge_ untapped pool of talent within the
AGA membership. I currently don't see that being tapped effectively (or even
measured). Please don't take that as a slap - it isn't, it's just that there
are likely to be benefits to the AGA that cannot even be imagined yet,
should this prove to be successful.

I'm not guaranteeing _anything_, but I can _assure_ you that this contest
will be publicized in as MANY venues as we can possible think of - to both
AGA members and non-AGA members. Believe it or not, there are still
thousands of people out there who don't know that the AGA even exists, and
we _all_ saw the reaction on this list to my early insistence that this be
an AGA event. Even George B. conceded that this might be just the kick that
the AGA needs to get more of it's membership involved.

On "Entry Fees" - I'm probably going to present the AGA MC with two options
on this -

Option 1 - No entry fees at all, for anybody. The AGA agrees to absorb all
costs associated with the event. Any monies realized from the sale of the
CD-ROM go to the AGA for it's own purposes.

Option 2 - An entry fee of $5.00 U.S. funds is charged per entry (one
aquascape). The fee is waived for AGA members (this will have to be verified
with the person who handles membership for the AGA). The entry fee is
payable to the AGA. The AGA agrees to absorb all costs associated with the
event, providing the contest organizers with an accounting of how much was
raised from entrance fees and the total cost of the event. Any monies
realized from the sale of the CD-ROM go to the AGA for use against contest
expenses. Any surplus should be earmarked for this event in future years.

Karen wrote:
>On a related subject, I think we should consider a cut-off number for
>entries.  I'm really not expecting that many, but could we handle 100
>entries?  What about 1,000 entries?  We really should decide what we _can_
>handle, and state that entries will be closed when that number has been
>reached.  This has the side benefit of encouraging people to get their
>entries in early if they are serious about wanting to be included.

James replies:
"Cough, cough, cough!" Excuse me? 1000 entries? Even *I* am not _that_
optimistic. But what you suggest brings up this point - what if one of the
late received entries (in _after_ your magic number has been achieved) is an
absolutely stunning example of aquascaping? Do we just say "Sorry Jack, too
bad, so sad...."; or do we, on the sly, pull out someone else's entry which
in _our_ opinion, doesn't measure up?

The only limit I can see would be how many images can fit on a CD-ROM. (5
images per entry - say a low res scan and a high res scan of each image. How
many does that work out to Erik?) If we get absolutely _swamped_ with
entries, we have volunteers who have said they would help Erik out with
scanning images. If we had to go to 2 CD-ROM's to hold all of the entries,
that would raise our costs by $1.20 per CD-ROM. We would also need more
judges, but I think that we would all be so estatically happy with our
success that we could find the bodies to review the entries, perhaps by
breaking down the numbers of entries reviewed by each judge to a reasonable
limit.

Let's see, the AGA has 800 members - you got how many in the last contest? I
know that this is open to non AGA folks, but I don't expect _thousands_ of
people to enter.... at least not the first year....

James Purchase
Toronto
(who should really be working on the proposal...)






  ------------------
  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