Subject:
|
Re: Town contest voting temporarily closed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.town
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:07:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
335 times
|
| |
|
|
Even my g/f, while a LEGO tolerant signigicant other, is not an AFOL, was
able to spot voting irregularities: I won't say which category or what model
(except to say not mine), but when she saw that 1st place had a huge lead
over 2nd, she looked at both the 1st and 2nd place models and was surprised
to discover that the 2nd place one was a very nicely detailed model by any
standard (quite an achievement to impress a non-AFOL, I'd think) whereas the
1st place model was... well, unspectacular to her eyes.
She also brought up a couple of points: it was a pain to navigate back and
forth to find what each model looked like. I think what Ahui said about
casual voters skipping most categories is correct: if we are going to make
people vote between this many models at once, most people are too lazy to
look at them all. So perhaps either include a large thumbnail on the actual
voting page, or perhaps, as suggested (again by Ahui) that we break the
contest voting up in order not to overwhelm any casual voters.
Michelle (my g/f) herself came up with a solution I rather like: nominate a
group of Lugnetters to vote (after all, who else WOULD take the voting as
seriously, combing over every entry individually?) Kevin, you yourself are
an obvious choice for 'chairman of the academy' of voters, as you didn't
enter any entries yourself (and would thus be totally impartial), but we
needn't restrict judges to non-contestants; as previously suggested, judges
who are participants either cannot vote for themselves (or maybe not vote in
their categories altogether, but that would siginificantly reduce the total
number of votes in some cases). This isn't because some will vote for
themselves, but because some people automatically vote against themselves
(and if all participants vote against themselves it levels the field. After
all, each person would then only be missing one vote that maybe would have
been cast in their favour).
This still leaves the headache of tabulating votes, but with a set number of
voters (say 20- 50?) at least it will be more manegeable than unrestricted
voting.
Maybe there's some glaring flaws I'm overlooking / that need fixing, but
considering it came from a non-AFOL, this sounds pretty good to me.
Thoughts?
Mark W.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
