Friday, May 23, 2003
tinywords contest report - how the judging worked
Now that I'm back from my vacation and have caught up a little bit, I'd like to post a few notes on the tinywords haiku contest.
It was important for this contest that the entries all be considered on a level playing field, without their authors being identified and without any glosses or explanations. In other words, the haiku had to stand or fall on their own.
To make this happen, I entered all haiku as I received them into a table that listed each haiku alongside its author's name and email address, in separate columns. I removed all formatting that could not be expressed in plain text (I preserved all punctuation and extra spacing, but removed fonts, bold/italic tags, and the like).
After receiving all 346 entries, I randomized the order of the list, so that multiple submissions from the same author would not appear next to each other. (One judge had requested this step, because sometimes a particular haijin's style is so distinctive that seeing two or three of their haiku together is enough to reveal their identity.) Then I numbered the haiku, removed the authors' names and contact information, and sent the plain, numbered haiku to each of the judges.
The judges had a week or so to read all the haiku and to nominate their favorites -- five nominations from each judge. I encouraged the judges to include their commentary as well. I compiled all of the nominated haiku into a single document that I then sent to each of the judges. The document also included the judges' comments, although without identifying which judge made each comment (so as not to prejudice the discussion).
The judges then discussed the merits of the various finalists, and then voted on the winners via a point system. Each judge had 20 points to assign, and they could give any of the nominated haiku anywhere from 0 to 10 points (but no more). I added up the totals, and that gave me the winners -- the one with the most points taking first place, second most points second place, and so on. I acted as tiebreaker where necessary.
The judging overall went very smoothly, with the judges contributing many thoughtful and insightful comments. Although there was a great diversity of opinion among the judges, the winning haiku was a clear favorite.
As editor of tinywords, I learned a lot from the process. The judges nominated haiku that I would otherwise have overlooked (and neglected a couple of my favorites, too). But watching them select the haiku, and hearing their reasons, was a real education for me, and I hope it will help me to improve the selections I make for the daily haiku on tinywords.
Now that I'm back from my vacation and have caught up a little bit, I'd like to post a few notes on the tinywords haiku contest.
It was important for this contest that the entries all be considered on a level playing field, without their authors being identified and without any glosses or explanations. In other words, the haiku had to stand or fall on their own.
To make this happen, I entered all haiku as I received them into a table that listed each haiku alongside its author's name and email address, in separate columns. I removed all formatting that could not be expressed in plain text (I preserved all punctuation and extra spacing, but removed fonts, bold/italic tags, and the like).
After receiving all 346 entries, I randomized the order of the list, so that multiple submissions from the same author would not appear next to each other. (One judge had requested this step, because sometimes a particular haijin's style is so distinctive that seeing two or three of their haiku together is enough to reveal their identity.) Then I numbered the haiku, removed the authors' names and contact information, and sent the plain, numbered haiku to each of the judges.
The judges had a week or so to read all the haiku and to nominate their favorites -- five nominations from each judge. I encouraged the judges to include their commentary as well. I compiled all of the nominated haiku into a single document that I then sent to each of the judges. The document also included the judges' comments, although without identifying which judge made each comment (so as not to prejudice the discussion).
The judges then discussed the merits of the various finalists, and then voted on the winners via a point system. Each judge had 20 points to assign, and they could give any of the nominated haiku anywhere from 0 to 10 points (but no more). I added up the totals, and that gave me the winners -- the one with the most points taking first place, second most points second place, and so on. I acted as tiebreaker where necessary.
The judging overall went very smoothly, with the judges contributing many thoughtful and insightful comments. Although there was a great diversity of opinion among the judges, the winning haiku was a clear favorite.
As editor of tinywords, I learned a lot from the process. The judges nominated haiku that I would otherwise have overlooked (and neglected a couple of my favorites, too). But watching them select the haiku, and hearing their reasons, was a real education for me, and I hope it will help me to improve the selections I make for the daily haiku on tinywords.
