From: Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org <javascript:;>> To: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition &lt;wikilovesmonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>> Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] jury process - easy and neat? Message-ID: <CACf6BesGfNFEVuXoQapbahbTmCiyMh0FdAOgZpGBungyENpZzA@mail.gmail.com<javascript:;> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Of course if you only use this tool as a means to get the best 1% of the pictures... it doesn't have to be as precise. Just have the final selection in a second round, with zero scores - then vote again for those or have a discussion on the mailing list. 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 &lt;platonides(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu