Yeah, it won't be easy :) But with big numbers it might be the only way. One possible way is to only allow two scores: 1 or 0 (and skip). And then take the average instead of the sum. That way you should be able to get the most wonderful images on top - we don't need to rank everything, but should only make sure that the top-25 images are within the selection of 500. 

Lodewijk

2012/8/7 Platonides <platonides@gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> My idea of making the number of jury members in a particular round infinite,
> was that we could hand out a jury token to each community member easily, and
> let them process 100-1000 images. If enough people do that, and if the
> distribution is either random or based on the pictures that have the least
> votes, that should give a somewhat (not perfect) workflow.
>
> Hope that makes sense,
>
> Lodewijk

I stand on my point that it would be hard. :-)
Not really in the tool supporting so many "juries", which would be
simple, but in processing that.
You could easily augment the data points by storing which images where
viewed by a single user and if it was +1, -1, or skipped. We could
also assume that all members are honest wikimedians and nobody is
trying to game to contest.
You end up with a pool of images ranked (eg. 1-10) by 1,000 different users.
How do you get the top-10/100/500 images?
The image some gave 10 points to, would barely have received 5 by
others, and viceversa...

_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org