Misc.

[krandall@world.std.com]

James wrote:

>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.

Automation for the calculations would be much better, of course, since it
will prevent just plain math errors.  I think it's a _must_ that judges be
able to adjust their scores until they are completely happy that they have
the class placed in the order they want it.  This is particularly necessary
since we've told them we don't _want_ them to leave a tie.  If they
inadvertently produce one, they are going to _have_ to go back and fiddle
the scores to choose one tank of the other.

>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.

No.  I think we should pick an arbitrary maximum number of classes that
seems reasonable in order to present a proposal to AGA.  I think 20 classes
gives us plenty of flexibility, but I'm open to other numbers.  Same with a
minimum number of entries to make a separate class.  I'd be in favor of 3.
I wouldn't want to go lower, but would not object to a higher number as
long as it doesn't get ridiculous.

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

James, if you don't want to hear what I have to say, just let me know, and
I will happily join Olga, and apply the time I'm spending on this to
projects that I _should_ be working on.  I have several times said that you
shouldn't feel like I was (I think your term was ) "jumping on you" when I
make a comment.  These are my opinions.  You can do with them what you
want.  You're not going to keep getting them with continuing comments like
that.

I _never_ suggested that you allow them to not do their job.  I suggested
that you not tie their hands as to how they chose the tanks they felt were
the best entries.

>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. 

Why are we doing this?  Who are we proving anything to.  IMO, we are doing
this FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENTRANTS.  We also should be doing it to educate
people.  Do you really think you'll encourage people to participate another
time by, in essence, saying "Your tank sucks, don't bother to play with the
big guys"?  Do you _really_ think that someone is going to send in tanks
that _they_ aren't proud of?  Do you think it's fair (or kind) to shoot
them down because they aren't experienced enough to know that they could do
better?  Do you think that just because you give them a token prize, they
will not also notice that a lot of other tanks in the contest are a lot
more attractive than theirs?  In any type of show, there are some divisions
or classes that are more hotly contested than others.  If this contest
becomes a recurring event, the same will happen.  Everyone will know that
if you enter the "Japanese style tank - 100 gallons and over" division
(hypothetical) you'd better have a pretty impressive entry to beat the
other 20 gorgeous tanks that were in that division last year, while if you
just want to be pretty sure of getting a ribbon, your best bet is to enter
the "Brackish Tanks - 10 gallons and under" (hypothetical) division which
just barely filled, and wasn't too impressive. ("Hey, _I_ can do better
than that!")

>In addition to
>showcasing aquascapes, we are hopefully attempting to "raise the bar" and
>help people improve their personal aquascaping by example. 

I believe that the "bar" raises as people's expectations and expertise
rise.  If you are teaching a bunch of kindergartners to read, you won't
teach them any faster by giving them a copy of "Great Expectations" than by
giving them a copy of "Dick and Jane".  All you'll manage to do is convince
a large number of them that it is not worth the effort to even try.

I was recently looking at some pictures of the first CO2 injected tank I
ever saw.  I was totally blown away by the tank at the time... I'd never
seen anything like it.  I wanted to go home right away, and learn how to do
that.  But that was a number of years ago, and I've learned a lot since
then.  Now I look at the same picture, and see and attractive tank, but no
more than many others.  My expectations of what can be done with a tank
have risen.  Exposure to all these beautiful tanks will do the same for the
viewers.  We don't have to WORK at educating them to the potential
detriment of some of the entrants.  For that matter, another way to
approach this is to do what someone suggested and make all the scores from
all the judges on all the tanks available.  It will be quite obvious that a
tank that wins with a score of 50 is not of the same caliber as a tank that
wins with a score of 90.

>Why would we want
>to award a 2nd rate effort, just because it was the only one entered in a
>category?

If we MAKE a class that has only one entry, we have failed in our job as
organizers.

The _only_ standard we have for this contest is the other tanks in any
particular category.  And among those, there will certainly be "worse" and
better examples.

>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.

Simply by withholding prizes from some entries, you are doing exactly the
same thing.  People aren't that dumb.

>Should they take the chance to enter, they should be
>prepared to win OR loose.

Yes, but you're proposing to not LET them win or lose.  Your proposing to
let the judges simply say, "This is below my standards, I won't even both
judging it"  All I can say is you'd better _not_ get Amano as a judge, or
the _majority_ of entries won't make the cut
;-)

>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.

I have to agree with Olga on this one.  Even if it _were_ just a stamp,
(there's also the certificates, ink and envelopes, not to mention the
amount of time involved) if you have 1000 entries, that's still $350 more
or less... A considerable chunk of change.

>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.

They can be ironed.<g>  Seriously, ribbons, when mailed, are usually mailed
with the streamers wrapped around the rosette.  So they fit in a fairly
small envelope, though not business size.  We'd probably need to pay for
the next stamp up.  What's that?  $.55 in the U.S.? (plus the cost of the
envelope)  Still a _lot_ less than shipping "stuff".  If we go with my
model of 3 prizes in 20 classes, We're talking less than $50.  A whole lot
less than the "participation certificates" you suggested. ;-) (which, BTW,
would cost at least as much to mail unless you're going to fold them up,
which would be pretty tacky)

>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). 

This isn't a "charity" even in the broadest sense of the word.  If
manufacturers contribute, it will be because they perceive a benefit to
their industry.

>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.

That may be how you've done it, but It is very common in many circles for
sponsors to be allowed to choose the division they sponsor.  Usually they
pick a second and third choice, in case their first choice is already taken
by another company.  There are advantages to both approaches, it's a matter
of choice.

>Quite often,
>small donations from multiple companies will be grouped together to form a
>more substantial "prize".

That works fine if you are talking about monetary donations.  It becomes
more problematic with dry goods.

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

As they should!

>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.

Was there a preliminary list?  I saw some names thrown out, and I saw some
discussion on whether a few of the names were suitable.  I also saw a lot
of discussion over whether many of the potential names submitted were
"artists" enough to be chosen as judges. I don't think I ever saw a list.
Maybe I missed it.

>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".

See, things do get lost in the shuffle ;-)  I just said that yesterday.

>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).

Well, last I heard, you were suggesting a "Best in Show" award.  I hadn't
heard of a Best, 2nd Best and 3rd Best.  But maybe I missed that too.

>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".

That only proves that it was or wasn't delivered. (it also costs extra to
send it that way)  It doesn't tell you what happend to it, or where it went
astray.  It also doesn't address the fact that you're going to have to
replace the prize if it _does_ get lost.  I wouldn't worry much about stuff
mailed inside the U.S. or Canada.  With the AGA book sales, we _have_ had
orders lost when shipping over seas, and have had to replace them.

>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. 

Fine. I'm discussing.<g>

>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.

Non-Internet _AGA MEMBERS_, which is a _much_ smaller subset.  You're now
talking about plastering the whole country (maybe the world) with flyers.<g>

>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, 

Then you didn't read TAG.  It was written up _well_ in advance.

>and the Amazon Trip wasn't publicized far
>enough in advance for many peole to make plans to be able to go.

The Amazon trip was _not_ an AGA event.  It was sponsored and organized by
the Tennessee Aquarium, where _I_ have a personal friend. _I_ contacted a
number of friends to see if they might be interested in going along, and
they said yes.  The fact that a good number of them happened to be AGA
members was only because many of my friends _are_ AGA members.

_IF_ the AGA ever organizes a trip of that sort, the entire membership will
be notified.

>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.

No one has ever said that AGA was perfect.  No one knows better than we
that things could be better.  (though I'm not sure how this contest is
likely to improve the way the organization works) It is only as good as a
small group of overworked volunteers can make it.  Considering how you've
harped at the unheard masses on this small project, I would think you'd
understand that.  If I didn't think this contest could be a potential
benefit to our members, _BELIEVE ME_ I wouldn't be wasting my time.  OTOH,
$1000 is a lot of _our members'_ money to throw at a "possibility".  And at
this point, any major benefit to the AGA _membership_ is certainly no
_more_ than an unimaginable possibility.

>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.

I don't think they will guarantee the last part.  That presupposes that
there will _be_ an event in future years, and ties up the money if there is
not.  

>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?

You play by the rules and say, sorry, we loved your entry, but maybe you'll
remember to send it in on time next time.  They don't let the best horses
into horse shows late just because their the best.  Entry rules are
specific, and there's _always_ a wait list.  If you don't dot the "i"s and
cross the "t"s, your entry is sent back, and you're outta luck, honey.

If there aren't a lot of entries, it becomes a non-issue.  You take what
you can get. (even though you are then suggesting that some might not be
"deserving" of prizes")  If we get swamped, we'd better have a way of
dealing with the excess.

>If we get absolutely _swamped_ with
>entries, we have volunteers who have said they would help Erik out with
>scanning images. 

How many volunteers?  How many images are they willing to scan? Scanning
takes time, sending them over phone lines takes more.  I think you better
figure out how many Erik can handle, and how many images 2-3 volunteer
scanners can reasonably be expected to handle.  I wouldn't _count_ on more
people than that, although if there _are_ more volunteers, it can just
lighten the load for everyone.

>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.

Again, what's reasonable?  200 entries apiece?  That's potentially 1000
images.  20 entries? Even that's 100 images to look through. You need to
decide what _is_ reasonable, and be prepared to deal with the excess.  If
you decide after the fact, and people get mad, The only press AGA gets out
of it will be bad.  We've hammered out the details on judging in detail.
We need to spend some time taking a serious look at the "what ifs" involved
in the mechanics.  I just got back from a horse show that got so many
entries that they decided to add an extra ring at the last minute.  There
were _NO_ positive comments from the competitors who were not turned away
because of the addition of the extra ring.  There was _LOTS_ of criticism
of the logistical problems that were caused by the (volunteer) managers
_trying_ to do their best to please everyone.  Be forewarned.

In the unlikely event of too many entries, we need a contingency plan.

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