> 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. I entirely agree. Years ago I saw a talent competition on TV, with three celebrity judges, who awarded scores between 1 and 100. One judge gave the 3 entrants scores of 78, 76, and 74; a different judge gave scores of 90, 60 and 30. Since the total of the scores was the final result, the third judge completely overwhelmed the first judge's scores and dominated the second (whose values I forget). I forget what it's called, but I like a method I once saw for a board game award. Everyone submitted their ratings, which were converted to ranks. The total of ranks was added up, and the lowest one dropped. Then the ranks were recomputed, and the process repeated until the winner was the last one left. Somewhat complex, but it eliminated the difference in ranges of the ratings. But having 1-10, with meanings similar to BGG, would probably be good enough. Bryan