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.