I broke the tracks down into further subtracks, which might explain what you're seeing.
On 3 June 2014 21:03, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
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 ed@wikimanialondon.org • facebook http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia • twitter http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia • 07796955572 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
Wikimania-l mailing list Wikimania-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l