i think we've had enough whining threads, dont make this another one.
On May 3, 10:39 pm, "Kevin Galligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'm kind of tired of going back and forth on this, and I've
> started auto-archiving these messages just to avoid them, but like a
> crack addict, I'm back on it. Some points below.
>
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As far as competitions go, I think this one is being pretty
> > efficiently and impartially run. This is hardly a black box, and we
> > all are getting a fair shake. A few points:
>
> First off, it is a black box, at this point. Again. That is the issue.
>
> > 1) How many contests even have a server side to let you know when your
> > app was looked at?
>
> You do understand its our server side, not Google's, and those who
> didn't have a server component have no idea what's happening, right?
>
> > 2) How many contests have 4 judges per entry, which are then analyzed
> > for outliers?
>
> That's part of the point. We see like 1 or 2 hits, even though we're
> supposed to have 4 judges. As per somebody elses point, part of the
> rules state that the judge doesn't have to open the app if they don't
> like the docs, but I think that starts to get to the root of the issue
> that a lot of us have.
>
> > 3) If your application only was looked at for 2 minutes, that is your
> > problem. This is a beauty contest and you need to provide a hook
> > within 30 seconds. It's like American Idol
>
> Again. 2 minutes, OK. The issue is with 0 minutes.
>
> > 4) You have a 3% chance of winning at least $25K - those are pretty
> > damn good odds relatively speaking
>
> Yeah, if you filed out a form and were randomly selected for 25k.
> Those are damn good odds. You're reaching here. For a lot of these
> apps, the time in could have pulled 25k in consulting fees.
> Certainly, if you figure 3% of that, or $750, the idea that you'd put
> this time in for the money is ridiculous.
>
> > 5) We all had the option to upload documentation. If you didn't get
> > them interested with with the Read Me, they don't owe you any minimum
> > amount of time
>
> This isn't American Idol. I think this should have been a little more
> clear. "If you don't excite us with your readme, you're out!".
> Something like that, right?
>
> > 6) Prior to the submission date Dan was answering tons of questions.
> > There were many threads discussing what people thought judges would
> > look for and how to hit the right buttons
>
> This I ding myself on. Should have been on the forums more before the
> submission. However, the implication that you'd learn critical
> knowledge a few days before the deadline from one dude on a forum
> seems to directly contradict "I think this one is being pretty
> efficiently and impartially run".
>
> I'm out. The summary, as always. For Google and Co, look at the
> apps, even if you're not into the docs. The take away for those who
> would try for round 2. Better docs. And, you know, better ideas
> maybe ;)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Challenge" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
