I did this. Why were low ranking submissions in the same category
accepted over higher ranking ones? If you sort each category, you find
that some high-ranking submissions were not accepted. Why was this?
I can provide precise figures if you want. To be clear, are you using
average scores, as you said? Or sum?
On 03/06/2014 20:36, Edward Saperia wrote:
They were sorted into categories (wikimedia,
technology, free culture,
etc), and slots were apportioned by approximately how many high
ranking (>8) submissions there were in each category. The idea was to
provide a good programme for a diversity of interests.
I had to make a couple of judgement calls, especially on sessions that
asked for a longer slot. How you compare a one hour session rated 8.6
to two 30 minute sessions rated 8.4?
Bear in mind the ranking system isn't perfect; it's hard to rank
consistently across 500 items, and the difference between an 8.4 and
an 8.6 is just noise, really. Anything above 8 is already a "strong
accept"!
*Edward Saperia*
Chief Coordinator Wikimania London <http://www.wikimanialondon.org>
email <mailto:ed@wikimanialondon.org>•facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia>•twitter
<http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia>• 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG