Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] IGDC Winter 2009?

  • FromS Myers <iamthecheeze@xxxxxxxxx>
  • DateTue, 17 Mar 2009 18:12:09 -0400
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Dale Sheldon <dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The range of the scale really doesn't matter.

I basically agree.  The concern of having an overly broad range is
that having too many places to rate causes judges to place scores on
an effectively arbitrary basis.  To the judge, in a 0-100 scale, 30 is
easily perceived as very close to 40.  Or very distant.
Psychologically speaking, the basic perceptions of the lay person is
that 32 is similar to 30, and 47 is similar to 40... you can probably
see where I'm going.  My point here actually is that having too many
possibilities is not necessarily a good thing.  On the whole, I
advocate a rating range which is not likely to have gaps wider than
the total number of entrants.

> scale change based on the number of entries ... adding complexity.

I'm sure I don't see "complexity" as an issue here, seems rather
simple to me.  But nevermind.  I'm actually very okay with a short
range scale, as well.  "Zero" or "One."  Or perhaps "Zero" "One"

> The coordinator should just arbitrarily pick a scale :)

Yes.  Do.  David Artman is our coordinator I believe?  You've now
heard all of our arguments and suggestions.  Officiate.  :)

It's always a long day.
86400 doesn't fFit into a short.