Jorge Arroyo writes: > Basically, I think that with such a low number of votes, and seeing how > small changes affect the final order a lot, why not just use the votes to > get a winner and a runner up. This way the rest of the games are not marked > for life (especially the ones on the bottom) when they might just be really > good games. Personally, I don't think hiding information is ever a good idea. I think it's fine to publicize the complete rankings but we should also document exactly what the vote entailed-- a small sample, consisting of people who happened to have the time to vote in this period, using entirely subjective measures of quality, and that the 7-way Condorcet tie had to be broken by the somewhat arbitrary ranked-pairs method. Okay, maybe that's not something that will fit nicely in the Infobox. But I would hope that people will generally not put overmuch stock in the full rankings. It's just one datapoint. But I think it's a datapoint worth keeping. Also, remember there is a "most improved" award (which has so far only been given once, since only one game was resubmitted). If you get some useful feedback from those who didn't like your game, you might consider tweaking it and re-entering it into the next contest. --dougorleans@xxxxxxxxx