One thing I really disliked in the past is that the size of abstracts really differed and abstracts were sometimes really large.
Please limit people to a small and to-the-point abstract, at least for the voting process. Best regards, Bart -- Bart van den Eijnden OSGIS - http://osgis.nl On Oct 2, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Volker Mische <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/02/2012 11:24 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Cameron Shorter >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> With my "simple maths" hat on: >>> Expect 150+ abstracts. Each abstract takes say 2 mins to read, think about, >>> and provide a ranking. >>> Total review time = 300 minutes = 6 hours. >>> >>> Best not to complicate the review process thus increasing review time. >>> >> >> Agreed - and if I was presented with a big list of 150 abstracts and >> 150 radio buttons from -2 to +2 I'd get to about 20 before giving up. >> However, a system that presented random pairs of abstracts or names >> and asked simply "which would you like to see?", then took a "this >> one/that one/dont know" response (with big fat buttons to easily >> click), and then presented another pair would enable reviewers to 'dip >> in' and do a bit more reviewing at any time. >> >> Its the "kitten war" method: http://kittenwar.com/ > > IIRC, the abstracts were always in random order, so that even if > everyone did a subset things should work out fine. > > Cheers, > Volker > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
