Re: Feedback on this years Showcase.. (fwd)

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:36:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
To: Phil Edwards <biotypical@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback on this years Showcase..

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the feedback, I actually like to hear this, because there are 
few who give helpful criticism.

Some responses to your feedback...

>       The first, and most popular, opinion is that an African Rift Lake 
> aquascape 
> is an inappropriate entry.  For an association dedicated to the hobby of 
> aquatic gardening, allowing an aquarium with no visible plants seemed out of 
> place to just about everyone.  Would it be uncalled for to require all 
> participants to have some sort of planting to qualify for entry into the 
> showcase in the future?

Here is my thinking on this: If the biotope really doesn't have any 
plants, then why prevent it?  The best entry in the category in 2001 was a 
fine example -- not the prettiest aquarium, but had absolute detail with 
regards to getting the appropriate plants and fish.  It won over a 
similar-looking rockwork tank to the one entered this year.

The entries this year were not of that calibre.  So the judges had to 
decide between a tank with a few non-biotope fish and one that was perhaps 
"closer" but had no plants.

The other thinking is that aquascaping doesn't mean plants any more than 
landscaping means plants.  I would hate to have to disqualify some entries 
from being displayed because of some technicality (which is why we don't 
disqualify natural tanks that are not 100% biotopically-colrrect either).


> If I might insert my personal opinion I feel that the ultimate and absolute 
> goal of creating a biotope aquarium is to re-create a piece of nature in 
> captivity as closely as possible.  I?ll admit to being one of the more 
> conservative individuals when it comes to what qualifies as a biotope.  I 
> realize quite clearly from personal experience that it?s practically 
> impossible to be 100% true to life.  However, I do believe that every 
> reasonable attempt at accuracy should be made in that re-creation.  This 
> will often result in an aquascape that is less than attractive by 
> conventional standards, even though it might be more authentic.  I greatly 
> appreciate that the AGA has included biotopes in the showcase and hope that 
> it continues in the future.

I agree 100% here, and this is the guideline I gave to the judges.  Weight 
should be more on accuracy than esthetics.  And I still very much beleive 
in the category, which is why it will be back!

> Another common opinion was against allowing professionals to compete in the 
> same divisions as amateurs.  Some have argued that this only increases the 
> quality of competition.  To some degree I know it does, the quality of 
> entries this year is a testament to that.  However, with the increased 
> resources available to professionals the great majority of people feel it 
> unbalances the nature of the competition.  As a soon to be full time 
> aquarium design professional I feel that a Professional Aquascape category 
> would be appropriate and would not take away from the quality of future 
> participation.  I believe this separation can only increase future 
> participation, create excellent competition at both levels, and will 
> continue to give amateurs inspiration and a goal to work toward without 
> feeling like theirs is a lost cause.

Very good point, and one we will have to consider for next year.  Note, 
however, that the "pros" (really only one, Aquarium Design Group) only 
enter one of the aquatic garden categories -- extra-large.  As I said, 
anyone with a 100% biotope would trounce their rockwork.  But their 
paludariums are very good.


> Further comments were made in regards to the judging process and participant 
> feedback in particular.  To be honest, most of the messages I?ve received 
> have been less than constructive, however even gold can be refined from the 
> dross.  Many of the participants who?ve spoken with me would like to be sent 
> a copy of their judging sheets after the results have been tallied.  I know 
> we discussed this not too long ago but I would like to bring it up now that 
> I know I?m not the only person who feels this way.  Next year would it be 
> possible to make the judges worksheets available to participants?  Everyone 
> who expressed this opinion to me feels it would be very helpful in improving 
> his or her technique.  Even receiving the numeric marks would go a long way 
> toward making the participants feel better about their entry was judged.  
> Most people simply want to know the answer to the age old question?.?why??

Let me try to explain why we didn't do it the first year.  The site is set 
up so I could, by changing one setting, allow the raw scores to be seen, 
and in fact I had intended it to be that way.  But then  two of the four 
judges opted to not use the score sheets at all for their bottom 2/3 of 
entries, only scoring maybe their top 5 in some categories.  I felt that 
it would be not only confusing, but would probably raise the ire of some 
of the participants.  "Why didn't I get scored?"  "Why did that judge not 
even bother to break olut the scores?"  The judges that DID take the time 
to do a full score also took the time to leave helpful comments, so we 
decided that the comments provided much more helpful feedback (when the 
judge was honest and critical when appropriate).

Now, this year the judges were 100% thorough with the scores, but I had 
told them at the beginning that their scores would not be on the final 
site, so I am abiding by these rules.  I will ask the set of judges next 
year if they are OK having their scores released.

Finally, there is almost no value of having one's own scores without the 
context of the others.  Every judge has their own min, max, etc.  It's 
literally all over the map, since it's the average ranking.

> On one of the discussion boards I frequent the idea of having different sets 
> of judges who would only judge two, maybe three, categories.  If there were 
> three people judging all Small and Medium Gardens with another group 
> reviewing the Large/Extra Large categories.   That would conceivably give 
> each group more time to spend on judging, conferring, and providing 
> feedback.  A similar idea I had would he to have two judges per group with 
> one person judging Technical Achievement and the other Layout/Design with 
> both reviewing for Overall Impression.

It is very difficult to come up with a complete set of judges for an event
like this, especially when looking for judges who are not planning on
entering, are not overly familiar with the aquascapes entered, and can be
reasonably unbiased in their critiquing.  Add to this that we're trying to
get people from different parts of the world.  This is the first year of
the three that all three judges actually judged all the catetories.

If you have some suggestions for judges for next year, or would like to 
help with some resources in running the contest, this is what we need the 
most!

The other think I would say overall is that the AGA contest was never 
about the competition.  It has, from day 1, been about having a set of 
aquascapes available on the web, for interested people to get ideas for 
their own aquaria.  The competition has been an "icing".  It is a little 
sad to find people getting upset about their aquariums not placing, and is 
certainly not particularly inspiring to me to run the event next year.  
Just yesterday I had someone e-mailing me complaining that the winning 
entry for 200-400L was actually only 168L and should be reclassified into 
a lower size (and potentially bumping up that person's entry into a higher 
placing).


--  - Erik

(apologies for typos... the site is being hammered this week by folks 
browsing the aquascapes, so e-mail is very jerky  from work).


---
erik at thekrib dot com


  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  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
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-contest", and password "second".