Iroha Nekomura wrote:
I agree. Top 5 shouldn't be named like that if there's more than five top 5. But... I think the best thing to do is to rename the top 5 badge to participant, so everyone who enters the competition gets rewarded with something at least and no one is left in the dark without any badges for participating. This is like Black Boo said: "it will quicken the process of competitions and allow more to happen over the course of the year". Also, if there are lots of entries in one competition (like over 15), even if everyone makes great entries, with top 5 badges there's gonna be a lot of subjectivity (all competitions have subjectivity since votes are based on subjective opinions), but even more subjectivity than most competitions and you will need to rely entirely on luck to get a top 5 badge. It's pretty unfair. It would be better to simply reward everyone for their effort.
Back on topic, I vote Transpencil
See, but here I disagree. Turning Top 5 badges into "Participation" badges will completely devalue the worth of the badges in general. If everyone simply gets a badge for participating, I think that sooner or later it will lead to a more lethargic attitude towards the competitions, as more people will come into the mindset of "Well, I get a badge anyway, so why put more effort into it?" The point of these competitions is to nurture a friendly, yet competitive environment that brings out the best the members have to offer in their talents, because the badges give them something to strive for, including the Top 5 badge. Take that away for a participation badge, and people will just care less, and put less care into their entries.
The fact of the matter is that there isn't any simple end-all, be-all solution to this. Pedigree poked a huge hole in my logic mentioning that there are times when there will not be a Top 5 because all of the votes will go to one or two entries. A potential solution I just thought of was to instead give everyone five slots for voting in a single voting period. However, the value of the votes--or points in this case--will descend dependent on the listed entries. For example:
1. Person A
2. Person B
3. Person C
4. Person D
5. Person E
Person A receives 5 points because they're at the top of the list. Meanwhile, person B receives 4, C receives 3, D 2, and E 1. The points are determined in descending order of how the voter lists the entries based on preference. It may slightly complicate the tallying process, as much more addition would need to be done, but this will result in shorter voting periods, as well as solving the "All votes to one person" problem Pedigree mentioned, since having five slots on the ballot automatically creates a top 5. The only foreseeable problems with this method are people that fail to follow directions could cause problems. Alas this is all conjecture at this point, though I recall the Top 5 system was more effective in competitions back in the days of yore when we would have at least 10 entries per comp. We may just have to live with the outdated system.
And so I'm not derailing the thread further, I place my vote for
SuperArthurBros
[quote="Iroha Nekomura"]I agree. Top 5 shouldn't be named like that if there's more than five top 5. But... I think the best thing to do is to rename the top 5 badge to participant, so everyone who enters the competition gets rewarded with something at least and no one is left in the dark without any badges for participating. This is like Black Boo said: "it will quicken the process of competitions and allow more to happen over the course of the year". Also, if there are lots of entries in one competition (like over 15), even if everyone makes great entries, with top 5 badges there's gonna be a lot of subjectivity (all competitions have subjectivity since votes are based on subjective opinions), but even more subjectivity than most competitions and you will need to rely entirely on luck to get a top 5 badge. It's pretty unfair. It would be better to simply reward everyone for their effort.
Back on topic, I vote Transpencil[/quote]
See, but here I disagree. Turning Top 5 badges into "Participation" badges will completely devalue the worth of the badges in general. If everyone simply gets a badge for participating, I think that sooner or later it will lead to a more lethargic attitude towards the competitions, as more people will come into the mindset of "Well, I get a badge anyway, so why put more effort into it?" The point of these competitions is to nurture a friendly, yet competitive environment that brings out the best the members have to offer in their talents, because the badges give them something to strive for, including the Top 5 badge. Take that away for a participation badge, and people will just care less, and put less care into their entries.
The fact of the matter is that there isn't any simple end-all, be-all solution to this. Pedigree poked a huge hole in my logic mentioning that there are times when there will not be a Top 5 because all of the votes will go to one or two entries. A potential solution I just thought of was to instead give everyone five slots for voting in a single voting period. However, the value of the votes--or points in this case--will descend dependent on the listed entries. For example:
1. Person A
2. Person B
3. Person C
4. Person D
5. Person E
Person A receives 5 points because they're at the top of the list. Meanwhile, person B receives 4, C receives 3, D 2, and E 1. The points are determined in descending order of how the voter lists the entries based on preference. It may slightly complicate the tallying process, as much more addition would need to be done, but this will result in shorter voting periods, as well as solving the "All votes to one person" problem Pedigree mentioned, since having five slots on the ballot automatically creates a top 5. The only foreseeable problems with this method are people that fail to follow directions could cause problems. Alas this is all conjecture at this point, though I recall the Top 5 system was more effective in competitions back in the days of yore when we would have at least 10 entries per comp. We may just have to live with the outdated system.
And so I'm not derailing the thread further, I place my vote for [b]SuperArthurBros[/b]