HB wrote:The number of board members means very little, it's sustained contributors that defines a site
Do you mean HB users have posted a total of 20733 articles versus SCAA users have posted a total of 291 articles?
HB wrote:The number of board members means very little, it's sustained contributors that defines a site

Omniryx wrote:Finally, I regret to say that I'm just not convinced by the arguments about the calibration scoring system.
Omniryx wrote:If head judges are having that much trouble with outlier scores, perhaps the answer is additional training or higher credentialing standards rather than "let's all sit down and get together on this."
miKe mcKoffee wrote:Do you mean HB users have posted a total of 20733 articles versus SCAA users have posted a total of 291 articles?
I've never witnessed any back-and-forth between judges with respect to their individual scores.
The SCAA isn't a big-budget organization, but after thinking about this for several months, I agree it would be cool to have immediate computer-tallied scoring after each competitor shown to the audience before the next competitor starts. A few sanity checks in the software would catch any inconsistencies and eliminate the need for "judges' consultations" backstage.
Meanwhile, other boards sprang up to fill the gap. There are thousands (I think) of lost posts from the old SCAA boards.