Re: Categories

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

The other day I posted a proposed set of categories for the contest portion
of the event. I heard from a couple of people concerning it - the
"miscellaneous" category which I had used didn't meet with much acclaim, and
I have to agree that the term does leave a lot to be desired. It might be
quite possible for us to shoehorn all entries into the other categories. So,
if we drop that category we end up with the following:

Proposed Divisions

1. Underwater Gardens
2. Natural / Biotope Aquascapes
3. Artificial Aquascapes
4. Paludariums

Early on, several people had suggested that aquascapes be divided by size -
there was discussion whether it would be best done by tank length or by
volume. Given the variety of possible tank shapes, I feel that volume would
be a more likely measurement. I proposed that we create three classes for
each division, separating aquascapes into small, medium and large, with the
following ranges suggested for each:

Proposed Classes

a. Small - Under 30 U.S. Gallons
b. Medium - 30 - 90 U.S. Gallons
c. Large - Over 90 U.S. Gallons

This would give us a structure with 12 separate "potential" Categories.
Depending upon the entries received, we could end up with fewer (I doubt
that we will get enough paludariums entered to require all three classes for
that particular division).

At this point in time, I want to know if this structure meets with general
approval or if anyone has an alternative they wish to put forward. On this I
don't want silence - I want to know if you like it or if you don't. If you
don't, hopefully you can expand upon your reasoning.

For example, do the words used for the divisions accurately and
comprehensively describe a wide enough range of possibilities to encompass
all possible aquascapes for our intitial foray into this. Does anyone object
to the words "artificial", "underwater gardens", "natural" or "biotope"? Are
there any _other_ words which could be used which would be easier to
understand?

Additionally, are the size ranges I proposed reasonable? For example - a
four foot tank could end up in either the "medium" class or in the large
class, depending upon the width and depth of the tank. Would this bother
anyone? I see no reason to worry about drawing the divisions any finer (like
having a "micro" class, for 5 gallon and smaller tanks). I am just wondering
if anyone has any other ideas about how we define the "samll", "medium", and
"large" ranges.

I like the idea of giving the entrants the ability to choose which division
they want their tank placed in (via a check mark on the  entry form) and
with us retaining the right to change an obvious mistake. We can describe
the types of aquascapes expected in each division on the web-site to guide
entrants in which they should select.

James Purchase
Toronto

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