Winners 12/19/2011

Or 4 with a score of 10 that's causing the debate right now?

Yeah..cause... poems that are winning with just a 10..are basically winning with one vote..its like one judge alone is picking one of the winners..without backup...

If we could do some of the stats to determine whether it would actually give a wider range of scores, AND if we can convince Janis to do some coding, I think it could be worth looking into. One of my concerns was that people might just vote a "5" on all of their buddies, if they had unlimited 5 votes to give away. But when I expressed this to a lonely soul, he suggested that perhaps the 5 and 4 votes could be limited, with unlimited votes for 3, 2, and 1. I think that would help a bit.

It might also help in another way. Right now, a poem that gets voted a 4 by two judges could still lose to a single 10 vote. Maybe it's not a big deal, but with a closer score distribution that probably wouldn't happen as much. Would it? At least it wouldn't be such a leap.

My other concern would be with the commenting. I find getting the judges' comments on my poems to be more helpful and gratifying than winning. It would be a bummer if the winning poems did not have comments. But.. if the judges still commented on their top poems (maybe the ones they voted five?) perhaps that wouldn't be a big issue.

Finally, managing all the scores will probably be a huge bugger for whoever is running the contest. Right now, Nana has to check the votes on the noms page against the votes she receives from the judges, to make sure they match up. Maybe it would help if votes on poems showed up separately. Like: "Awash," by The Prince: 5, 5, 5, 4 = 19

Does that make sense?

I think it did sibs...

Addl advantages (did not want to publish these on purpose...but given the nature of the qns raised):

1) The mandatory scoring on all poems can easily identify downvoting (people not in our good books)and upvoting (club members, "populars" and those on our favorite list, for others to see (e.g. mods)....which will then allow them (biased judges) to be hopefully replaced (no offense implied or to go on the defensive....it is a natural human tendency.....ask any psychologist, how they identify it when they administer certain tests). This process can remain confidential, so no one's pride is hurt in the public.
Secondly, it will also dissuade downvoting, as judges will likely not downvote a poem that is otherwise outstanding to many.......this is your next best way, as it is impossible to have all poems to be anonymous to the judges.

2) Eliminate the judge's dilemma, when he/she sees 2, or 3 or even 4 very good poems, and has to rank them as 10, 7 & 4 on the current system. (Reiterated from point 1 above).

3) And to incorporate Sibyllene's comment ^ a single 10 is still > 4+4, (i.e a single judge's winner can outshine 2 judges 3rd winner!)

3) Comments still need only be written on the top 2, 3 or 4...that can be decided by a consensus. So no significant addl work.

4) Agree with Abby ^ on this....to have Janis add a total score display for all poems, so the authors get a feedback on their writings. DOWNSIDE of letting that happen before the contest is over, is biasing the judges voting last, by telling them how their colleagues are voting...and then we all know how human psychology, defines "pursuasion".

5) Re: ^ "managing all the scores will probably be a huge bugger for whoever is running the contest".
Probably not any more work, as the computer totals, will pick the top 3 and as ties are going to be less probable, the person verifying the scores will just have to identify and verify the tally from what is mailed to them, by the judges. However, if there are 3,2,or 1 contributing to the winner's scores, you have to trust the programmer's adding system. There will not be any comments associated with those receiving 3,2 or 1....so there will be no need to worry about identifying the comments from these judges to be posted in the weekly blog on winners.

6) HM's will not change, as all comments from the judges, for the non-winner's are still available to be posted in the weekly thread. But ties will be practically eliminated.

Lastly, if you think of this concept logically, it is not at all complicated, to implement and follow. Needs very little in the way of programming difficulties.

I can't help but wonder if every weekly winner thread is going to turn into a discussion about this.

Well...with so many ties in the last 3 weeks I think it's inevitable.

So, I do get the hint...get off this thread! Ha ha! Will post a new dedicated one for everyone's input, as most here seem to want to see a change.

Best for moderators to take over the thread once I post my thoughts, hopefully for constructive use to improve judging in the future.

I can't believe I'm saying this..

but Who the hell cares?

by a tie or not... it won.

Deal with it, or just cry.
but cry alone..

Actually, I think no one is crying right now.
Those are only suggestion of how to improve the judging system.

LP...this is your quote from a past win...and I might add this poem won where one judge gave you a ten without comment..

"Now I can say, I HAVE WOOONNN :p lol
I must leave this talent behind. I've just got what I yearned for".
You seemed quite happy that week..yearning for something then... now telling others not to cry about unfair judging??? I'm not yearning...nor am I crying...just looking at the system we have and thinking...bollocks!

The week after that BTW...another of your poems was in a 4 way tie for 3rd place and...you won again...I do know the judges changed in that week but...it was one of the first tie situations I've come across...now they are more common...wonder why...also I've noticed that many poems that get an HM one week go on to win the next week...I find that strange also? Maybe this all needs to go to the other thread opened by A Lonely Soul? Yeah..I'll leave this comment in answer to you and I'll also post it in his new one!