Personally, I think every country can decide its own process - so lets make the tool somewhat dynamic, but not shoot down major options. Last year Russia had a public voting, and it seems they were happy with it. I'm no big fan of it, but who am I to stop it? :)
Lodewijk
2012/6/22 Platonides
<platonides@gmail.com>
On 21/06/12 18:29, aude wrote:
> We have a technical volunteer "intern" helping us in DC and this is
> something he wants to work on.
>
> I'm not exactly sure how the process worked last year, but we're
> thinking either integrating something into the WordPress site so that
> people can browse photos (pulled from Commons, like InstantCommons) and
> rate them. A public voting phase could help narrow the selection for
> the jury, which could also make use of the tool.
>
> Thoughts? suggestions? brilliant ideas?
Each instance used its own system. Nuno made a web application for
voting, from which you could start. There is also a toolserver tool
which facilitates downloading all the files from a category.
Last year we provided zips with all the images which our jury
downloaded. Then they chose those they deemed the best, which went to a
second round.
If you're joining the jury in one room (with multiple computers), it may
be simpler if they are provided directly a copy of the images in an
external drive. Remember that not all your jury members will be tech-savvy.
If I were designing such system, I'd make it an interface where the jury
would go giving a mark from 1 to 10 to each photo. But not actually
restricted to that. So after 200 photos, it could give a 12 if needed
(instead of recalculating all previous votes), or even provide marks
with decimal points.
The interface itself would be just a (zoomable) gallery of the photos
that he didn't review yet (plus auxiliar pages, to view the best ranked
by you, change a vote, etc.).
What would be interesting is that they could be using it from the first
day, so instead of reviewing all files after the competition closes,
they could keep up with the upload rate.
As far as a 10 given on Sep 1st is the same as one given on 30th Sep
(which is easy by things like moving the bar higher up to a 14), it'd be
equivalent.
You then fetch the N most ranked from each member to next round, so
different scales aren't a problem.
As for a public voting, I don't think it would work. You would need each
person to review a significant number of files, otherwise the noise
given by each different reviewer (a 10 by me could be an 8 by you). And
you won't be getting volunteers to review thousands of photos. Only the
jury will do that, because they agreed to. (Obviously, anyone is able to
volunteer to be jury. We were discussing on wlm-iberconf ml giving a
jury for another country and getting one).
What I had thought as a possibility for involving the public was to
allow it to choose a number of photos that pass to the next round (just
as each jury does), thus ensuring they get attention. But that won't the
jury task of having to view all of them.
Regards