Well, that's a pretty extreme overstatement. Nobody is judging applications "by the readme alone". However, judges are naturally going to judge everything you put in front of them. For example, if the application doesn't run or crashes on startup, judges explicitly mark it as such, even if the README is a work of art. On the other hand, if somebody provided a really good README file and a judge tries out a few functions of the app which are also very good, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that they're going to give the rest the benefit of the doubt and move on to the next app. In both cases, someone operating a server would see an "incomplete" session.
As we've said all along, the ADC is about cultivating great ideas and assessing potential, not quality assurance. Judges aren't sitting there with a checklist like a driving instructor, taking a point off every time you forgot to signal a lane change. - Dan On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:03 AM, phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am not saying anything about the platform, my main criticism is that > people where deceived about the judging process. If they were going to > judge an application by the readme alone, they should've said so and spare > us the hassle of deadlines and all that stress. On the contrary, it was > very clearly stated that working and feature-complete applications will be > preffered. > > I'm not complaining because I'm not gonna win (maybe I will, who knows, my > readme is by no means bad), but because of all the time I used to develop > a working application NOW (instead of when the first handsets come out and > there's a stable and working SDK) when in fact a pdf and a login screen > would have sufficed. > > > > > I certainly don't think I've wasted my time by entering the ADC, even > > though I currently think it's unlikely that I will win a final 50 > > place. I have always been interested in the potential of the Android > > platform and not primarily in the challenge (which I have always > > believed Google to have run in good faith). > > > > The concerns I expressed previously arose because I failed to > > understand that judging was more evenly weighted between the > > application and its readme, than I had previously thought. This has > > since been clarified by Dan Morrill in posts to this forum. If I have > > any criticisms of the challenge, they are minor, but one would be that > > this wasn't clear prior to submission - I certainly remain positive > > about the opportunities that Google has already provided for Android > > developers via this challenge. > > > > Of course, the extent to which preparing a submission to the ADC (or > > ADC II) deviates from ones development roadmap will determine the > > amount of 'additional' (and possibly wasted) work that the submission > > will require. This will naturally vary between applications, but I for > > one certainly won't automatically disregard entering the ADC II. > > > > Tom. > > > > On May 4, 1:30 pm, q2dm1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have a backup server, so it is very unlikey they both failed at the > >> same time. That said, I had 2 spot checks or whatever in total (<2 > >> minutes each). Don't think I'd waste my time on ADC2. > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
