Dear All, we were indeed using the mailing list (consistently since I believe 2014), and a discussion of every photograph of the top 10, as well as before that a discussion of what we leave in the short list, is a necessary part of a workflow. We never had jury members who declined to respond (with a couple of exceptions when a jury member would let us know well in advance that they would not be available during a certain time interval), and though we typically do not agree with each other the discussions are always constructive and productive.
Best Yaroslav On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lodewijk, > > Its easy to arrange an online call by national organizers but not always, > the jury members want to communicate with each other through chats or calls > due to various reasons. If 1 of the 3 members does not want to join calls > or does not want to communicate through other private channels, then the > objective of communication fails. That happened this year, as we could not > arrange calls for jury members for this reason. > > Thats why, it is necessary to give jury members power to communicate with > each other through Montage or to check each other's point of judgements, so > that communication does not depend on the will of organizing team or jury > team members. > > Regards > Bodhisattwa > > On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 10:27, effe iets anders <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks, that is helpful to be aware of. >> >> Montage is indeed not designed as a communication platform between >> jurors. I think the assumption is that national organizers are better able >> to organize that separately. I know that the international team set up a >> mailing list for that, which works OK (This is mostly used between rounds). >> That is something the national team could also do, I suspect. In some >> situations another medium (chat, call, etc) may be more appropriate. I'll >> make sure to pass on your thought to the development team though. >> >> A balance between the different criteria is a returning concern among >> organizers, and some recommendations from what works well, may be helpful. >> Maybe other national teams figured this out? >> >> I think it would be especially helpful to set up some specific >> constructive recommendations for how to organize a national process. I know >> that Laura from the US team started working on a recommended workflow >> during the international team meeting, and hope that will be a good >> starting point for that conversation. >> >> Warmly, >> Lodewijk >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:50 PM Shyamal Lakshminarayanan < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> [I am not on the list, but feel free to forward] >>> >>> Just to add, this should not be reduced completely to a software >>> requirements issue - there is also a need for pre-discussion and consensus >>> on the aims, the process to be followed, and documentation of these to >>> ensure clarity. >>> >>> There is also the point about the software - we had decided that high >>> weightage was to be given to Encyclopaedic value of the image which was >>> also judged on effort and research inputs of the photographer and not just >>> on photographic merit - however some judges were looking only at the >>> photography angle - on the other hand I had decided that any image of >>> places with a very large number of images already on Commons (of places >>> like Qutb Minar or Taj Mahal ) needed to be down-valued regardless of HDR >>> effects or other photographic enhancement attempts. Consistency of user >>> contribution (ie not just here for the contest) also seemed like values to >>> reward. So essentially we were judging along multiple dimensions - some >>> looking at photo quality, some looking at usability, and there were also >>> some grounds for disqualification (lacking EXIF, looking like copyvios, >>> contributor incommunicado ) and so on that need to be handled carefully >>> before just looking at a sorted top 20 from four judges and then looking at >>> the combined top rank . Also the judges were kept out during this final >>> sorting stage and were only revealed the final results (with surprise/shock >>> results). >>> >>> best wishes >>> Shyamal >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 9:55 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> [cc'ing Shyamal] >>>> >>>> Yes, there were some disappointments from Shyamal's side as a jury >>>> member. The following one was his main point of concern. >>>> >>>> Shyamal had an expectation that through Montage, while selecting >>>> photographs, he would have an option to communicate with other jury members >>>> to discuss his points and to know about other member's judgements. While >>>> not able to do so, he at the end of the contest, surprisingly noticed that >>>> one photograph which was given low rank by him, came to first 10 >>>> photographs as it got higher ranking by other jury members as per their >>>> judgements. He felt that Montage still needs more improvements so that jury >>>> members can communicate with each other and deliver effective judgements. >>>> >>>> This was the primary concern which was beyond our capacity to handle as >>>> a national organizer team. This can be taken care of by the international >>>> team and Montage developers. This year, fron our side, we tried to organize >>>> online calls among our jury members, but for some reason, that didn't >>>> materialize. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bodhisattwa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 8 Mar 2020, 09:30 effe iets anders, <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Bodhisattwa, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing. Could you provide a bit more background >>>>> information? The LP seems to be mostly a list of things to think about >>>>> when >>>>> accepting the position. Was this a judge that was particularly >>>>> disappointed >>>>> by how the process was ran? What were the primary pain points? Did the >>>>> team >>>>> manage to improve on them for the future? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Lodewijk >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:32 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Our WLM in India 2018 jury member User:Shyamal wrote a learning >>>>>> pattern on meta. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the link - >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learning_patterns/Being_a_judge >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Bodhisattwa >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments >>>>>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments >>>>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
