<<<a first place would only be awarded if the piece was of a high enough quality. So in a couple of catagories there was only one entry which got 3rd place because it was not 1st place quality.<<<
Well, as a quibbler of semantics, this bothers me. Awards for excellence may be based against an absolute. Then, the best entry might only qualify for Good (or even Poor) and nobody gets an Excellent rating. There can also be more than one Excellent, too, with that rating system. However, in my mind, first, second, and third are *by definition* compared to whatever's entered. First means the best, the foremost example of what was entered. If even the best entered is only mediocre, it's still the foremost example. Similarly, the third best is only that "low" because there were exactly two pieces that were better than it. If there were 10 entries and all were poor, I'd be disappointed but I'd still award a best, second-best, and third-best. If the competition is going to have an external, absolute standard against which the entries are compared, then I feel they must change the rating system to outstanding-excellent-good-adequate-poor and award however many ribbons are appropriate. To say there are first-second-third ribbons but they won't be awarded unless the entries are also excellent is trying to have one's cake and eat it too. just my not-so-humble opinion, Robin P. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.pittsburghlace.8m.com/ - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
