Dario, I looked at your review data and the pictures. To me, almost all of the pictures were well crafted. Just for fun, I added a column with the variance VAR(). Some of the pictures that I liked the best had high variances.
In thinking about how I judge pictures, I think I put them in three general categories. There are some that I really like, some to which I am indifferent, and others that really rub me the wrong way. The problem with the 1--10 scoring is that it's not clear if the low scores were caused by strong negative reactions or by indifference. I think that it would be interesting to try a little different scoring method: say, +5 = very positive, 0 = indifferent, -5 = strongly negative. You could use the scoring to create several different sub-exhibits: o) A "least offensive" exhibit with pictures that score high and have the fewest negative ratings o) A "most polarized" exhibit with pictures that have both the most positives and the most negatives o) A "most lame" exhibit with the pictures that score nearest zero. Just a crazy thought.... --Mark Dario Bonazza wrote: > >Here are the submitted ratings: >http://www.dariobonazza.com/provv/Street.xls > >Have you seen that quite many pictures rank among the best for some judges >and among the worst for others? >Only two pictures are well above the rest and only two are well below. Any >further comments? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
