The World Swing Dance Council uses Relative Placement from the judges to compute the final ranking. http://www.swingdancecouncil.com/library/relativeplacement.htm It removes the severe weighting that happens when a judge's range is much greater than another's (and that had been abused - there had been a number of instances of one judge giving their first place a very high score, and all other places very low scores, thus artificially inflating their rank over the others when all the scores were tallied) Timothy > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse >