Sorry for coming in with this rather late, but anyhow.
I don't feel very comfortable with the 1-10 scale. After reading lots of messages and remarks on judging I kinda conclude that competition entries can be good as well as bad in any of the topics being judged. If we agree on this being true then it is also "humanly" more intresting to vote in the same way, meaning a "good" scale and a "bad" scale. So instead of 1-10 the scale would then be :
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
which could be read as :
very bad ... not good ... neutral ... good ... excellent
Quite a lot of recent polls and questionnaires are conceived in a similar way and I find them easier to answer, because it eliminates having to start with a score of 5 or 6 as "normal" and also fits closer with judging in the sense of above or below par.
There's also an intresting side effect when totalling the points. If you like the scheme I would suggest on counting the overall average, but also averaging the minus- and plus-side separately. It gives a possibleextra boost to entries that are very good at some points but very bad at others. As an example of this overall/negative/positive scorecard you could have following result :
Entry 1 : 0/-1/+1
Entry 2 : +3/+1/+4
Entry 3 : 0/-3/+3
Entry 1 is "normal", no special mistakes, no special good features. Entry 2 is good in all aspects. Entry 3 generally levels with entry 1 but must have some excellent features worth looking at, which makes it more intresting than entry 1.
Comments ?
Alex
I don't feel very comfortable with the 1-10 scale. After reading lots of messages and remarks on judging I kinda conclude that competition entries can be good as well as bad in any of the topics being judged. If we agree on this being true then it is also "humanly" more intresting to vote in the same way, meaning a "good" scale and a "bad" scale. So instead of 1-10 the scale would then be :
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5
which could be read as :
very bad ... not good ... neutral ... good ... excellent
Quite a lot of recent polls and questionnaires are conceived in a similar way and I find them easier to answer, because it eliminates having to start with a score of 5 or 6 as "normal" and also fits closer with judging in the sense of above or below par.
There's also an intresting side effect when totalling the points. If you like the scheme I would suggest on counting the overall average, but also averaging the minus- and plus-side separately. It gives a possibleextra boost to entries that are very good at some points but very bad at others. As an example of this overall/negative/positive scorecard you could have following result :
Entry 1 : 0/-1/+1
Entry 2 : +3/+1/+4
Entry 3 : 0/-3/+3
Entry 1 is "normal", no special mistakes, no special good features. Entry 2 is good in all aspects. Entry 3 generally levels with entry 1 but must have some excellent features worth looking at, which makes it more intresting than entry 1.
Comments ?
Alex