> According to Muthu, we should've shut our > servers off last week.
What? Who asked you to shut down your servers? Hope you were smart enough to keep it running!! On May 4, 10:27 am, "Kevin Galligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. So, you agree with the point. Haphazard, "seat of the pants" > sort of management. Not saying its "wrong". Just saying a lot of > people spent a lot of time doing this. > > Checking the forums to stay up to speed? OK. But we're all throwing > opinions back and forth. According to Muthu, we should've shut our > servers off last week. So who's the authority? I guess Dan? I found > out about the 3/3 date becoing 4/14 from engadget. > > You and I can agree to disagree. You REALLY disagree with me. Great. > My email is on the post, along with my name (unlike yours). I'd be > happy to clarify directly. I think you're just baiting for the flame, > which is just wasting everbody's time. > > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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". > > > On the welcome page of Android there is actually a step that says that > > you should check the forums regularly to stay up to date. > > > On May 3, 1:39 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
