I broke the tracks down into further subtracks, which might explain what you're seeing.
On 3 June 2014 21:03, edward <[email protected]> wrote: > I did this. Why were low ranking submissions in the same category > accepted over higher ranking ones? If you sort each category, you find > that some high-ranking submissions were not accepted. Why was this? > > I can provide precise figures if you want. To be clear, are you using > average scores, as you said? Or sum? > > On 03/06/2014 20:36, Edward Saperia wrote: > > They were sorted into categories (wikimedia, technology, free culture, > etc), and slots were apportioned by approximately how many high ranking > (>8) submissions there were in each category. The idea was to provide a > good programme for a diversity of interests. > > I had to make a couple of judgement calls, especially on sessions that > asked for a longer slot. How you compare a one hour session rated 8.6 to > two 30 minute sessions rated 8.4? > > Bear in mind the ranking system isn't perfect; it's hard to rank > consistently across 500 items, and the difference between an 8.4 and an 8.6 > is just noise, really. Anything above 8 is already a "strong accept"! > > *Edward Saperia* > Chief Coordinator Wikimania London <http://www.wikimanialondon.org> > email <[email protected]> • facebook > <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter > <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
