Its easy to arrange an online call by national organizers but not always,
the jury members want to communicate with each other through chats or calls
due to various reasons. If 1 of the 3 members does not want to join calls
or does not want to communicate through other private channels, then the
objective of communication fails. That happened this year, as we could not
arrange calls for jury members for this reason.
Thats why, it is necessary to give jury members power to communicate with
each other through Montage or to check each other's point of judgements, so
that communication does not depend on the will of organizing team or jury
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 10:27, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>
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.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:50 PM Shyamal Lakshminarayanan <
> [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
> best wishes
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 9:55 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> [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
>> On Sun, 8 Mar 2020, 09:30 effe iets anders, <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>
>>> 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?
>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:32 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
>>> bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Our WLM in India 2018 jury member User:Shyamal wrote a learning
>>>> pattern on meta.
>>>> Here is the link -
>>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list