[Wikipedia-l] New logo and further process

[Ulrich Fuchs]

> Wrong. The international logo contest contained clear rules on both size
> and format. These rules were violated by some submissions, but it would
> have been unfair to just throw these logos out, 

Why? We are now exactly in the situtation that the winning logo does not scale 
very good to small sizes! If they all would have the same size from the 
beginning, they would be better comparable, and the logo pages could have 
been downloaded faster. (my next point:)

> > The way they
> > were presented even more (basically that already was a preselection).
>
> The logos were ranked by the number of votes from the first voting round.

I'm talking about the first round(!), where the logos were ranked according to 
the time they got in. That had two consequences:

1) I doubt that too many people did download page 100-125, because downloading 
page 1-25 already took a long time, 25-50 again a long time and so on. You 
get the point? If all logos were 150x150, they would have fit on a single 
page. 

2) New logos were added at the end, while the first logos were already 
visible. I am not sure any more, if they also were already votable, which 
would make it worse. But, what really *does* matter: The Logos on the first 
pages had more time to sink into the brains of people.

The two three highest scoring logos are to be found on page 1-25, the third is 
also the example of the logo contest, to be found on the top page of the 
contest.



> They weren't.

We first had 10 final candidates, we then had 11. First everyone could vote 
(in the first round), than only people with user pages (also in the first 
round). And so on. 

>
> > The way the final voting was done was the most ridiculous thing at all,
> > because there were'nt just 11 candidates (as they were supposed to be
> > left from the first round), there were about 35,
>
> It was always made clear that you would be able to vote on all variants in
> the final vote.
>
> > So the "type 2" logos got round the bout
> > 2500 points in total,
>
> The total points are irrelevant. The logos were ranked by the average
> score, it doesn't matter at all how many people voted on each logo because
> the score is the sum divided by the number of voters *for that variant*.

You are totally right here, please take my apologies. I confused our system 
with a system with a *limited* number of votes by voter, but here we could 
vote for *every* alternative (not just for eg. five of them.)
Sorry again, this was my fault, I was to fast here.

Uli