You and @corporateay are the first in my memory to voice these concerns. Corporateay questioned his performance. You, with regards to the recurring winners.
@Calumam set the merit bases and I defined them early on in the contest history. He never set a restriction on recurring winners. I believe the reason was that if someone continually performs well and scores high, they should be rewarded. Do you have a specific example of someone who continually appears on the winner's list? Also, have you compared their articles against others who may not have done as well?
AMR provided me with data I requested on the entire contest earlier this morning. The intent would be to evaluate all of the contests in the WOTW and check out things like:
- User participation and metrics (votes, comments, unique commenters, etc.)
- Recurring rewards (contest place, week by week, topic)
- Weekly community engagement
I've presented such data on a weekly basis already, but not for the ENTIRE contest's history. It will take a bit to sift through all the data. It's about 4-5 months worth.
If you wish to look at things, I welcome it. I'd love to see an outside perspective of the contest. I put the weekly statistics out there expressly for this purpose.
I'm a very observant person hahaha
But my questioning is not because I find something wrong. None of that. just really noticed
As for @calumam's time, I didn't look at anything. I've just followed the last few weeks since his absence.
And I agree with the point that if someone is always writing good texts, they should always win. It's that person's credit for their performance.
I myself, at the beginning of everything, had told @calumam that I wasn't trying to win. Since my time is short and mainly the engagement that was one of the pillars to win at the time among publications was very difficult for me to achieve due to time.
But, I was helping to spread the "word" and the contest so that more people could see and more contestants came in to make it bigger and bigger ;)
When I asked you if you had noticed it was exactly because you have more data and statics and if this could have made you notice and if this could end up causing you some kind of annoyance
I definitely noticed. I didn't take anything negative from what you wrote nor would I. I will always be encouraging with a questioning attitude. We can't find problems if we don't communicate. So, if you have questions, please feel free to ask. Only together can we improve the platform.
The merit grading is an objective response to the subjective process of curation. It aims to level analysis of a user's article across the board. Everyone gets graded along a line of strict criteria. It works to align curators to a set standard. It's also leads to your observation of the recurring winners situation.
I want to reward everyone for their efforts in the weekly rewards, but if I prevent authors with the highest grades from winning, because they won before, then I negate Cal's merit grading. It's an idea I toyed with before realizing the potential consequences.
The next step for me to take, then, is to utilize data analysis to evaluate the process entirely. The evaluation will look at the highest award winners, their articles, and the consistency of their grading...perhaps more. Where do I go from here?
@AMR has been doing some painstaking analysis on the whales of POB. Should I do something similar for those that participate in the WOTW contests? My approach could be that I single out different authors each week and show how I review their articles both alone and against other users. I figured I would start with @corporateay since he was the first to ask. Would you mind this corporateay? I feel this is a natural progression for the contest.