Thanks, that is helpful to be aware of. Montage is indeed not designed as a communication platform between jurors. I think the assumption is that national organizers are better able to organize that separately. I know that the international team set up a mailing list for that, which works OK (This is mostly used between rounds). That is something the national team could also do, I suspect. In some situations another medium (chat, call, etc) may be more appropriate. I'll make sure to pass on your thought to the development team though. A balance between the different criteria is a returning concern among organizers, and some recommendations from what works well, may be helpful. Maybe other national teams figured this out? I think it would be especially helpful to set up some specific constructive recommendations for how to organize a national process. I know that Laura from the US team started working on a recommended workflow during the international team meeting, and hope that will be a good starting point for that conversation. Warmly, Lodewijk On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:50 PM Shyamal Lakshminarayanan < lshyamal(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > [I am not on the list, but feel free to forward] > > Just to add, this should not be reduced completely to a software > requirements issue - there is also a need for pre-discussion and consensus > on the aims, the process to be followed, and documentation of these to > ensure clarity. > > There is also the point about the software - we had decided that high > weightage was to be given to Encyclopaedic value of the image which was > also judged on effort and research inputs of the photographer and not just > on photographic merit - however some judges were looking only at the > photography angle - on the other hand I had decided that any image of > places with a very large number of images already on Commons (of places > like Qutb Minar or Taj Mahal ) needed to be down-valued regardless of HDR > effects or other photographic enhancement attempts. Consistency of user > contribution (ie not just here for the contest) also seemed like values to > reward. So essentially we were judging along multiple dimensions - some > looking at photo quality, some looking at usability, and there were also > some grounds for disqualification (lacking EXIF, looking like copyvios, > contributor incommunicado ) and so on that need to be handled carefully > before just looking at a sorted top 20 from four judges and then looking at > the combined top rank . Also the judges were kept out during this final > sorting stage and were only revealed the final results (with surprise/shock > results). > > best wishes > Shyamal > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 9:55 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal < > bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> [cc'ing Shyamal] >> >> Yes, there were some disappointments from Shyamal's side as a jury >> member. The following one was his main point of concern. >> >> Shyamal had an expectation that through Montage, while selecting >> photographs, he would have an option to communicate with other jury members >> to discuss his points and to know about other member's judgements. While >> not able to do so, he at the end of the contest, surprisingly noticed that >> one photograph which was given low rank by him, came to first 10 >> photographs as it got higher ranking by other jury members as per their >> judgements. He felt that Montage still needs more improvements so that jury >> members can communicate with each other and deliver effective judgements. >> >> This was the primary concern which was beyond our capacity to handle as >> a national organizer team. This can be taken care of by the international >> team and Montage developers. This year, fron our side, we tried to organize >> online calls among our jury members, but for some reason, that didn't >> materialize. >> >> Regards, >> Bodhisattwa >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Mar 2020, 09:30 effe iets anders, &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Bodhisattwa, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing. Could you provide a bit more background >>> information? The LP seems to be mostly a list of things to think about when >>> accepting the position. Was this a judge that was particularly disappointed >>> by how the process was ran? What were the primary pain points? Did the team >>> manage to improve on them for the future? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:32 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal < >>> bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Our WLM in India 2018 jury member User:Shyamal wrote a learning >>>> pattern on meta. >>>> >>>> Here is the link - >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_patterns/Being_a_judge >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bodhisattwa >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list >>>> WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments >>>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list >>> WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments >>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org >> >> _______________________________________________