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" "Two." > 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.