We are new team in community and the first contest in which we decided to take part - Contests Results Interface. We have developed an interface for contests. Two weeks were not enough for us to implement, but we posted the decision and did not change it so that the judges could evaluate the work of 2 weeks.
First, not all of the participants were honest. Some have continued to work, but this is not the point of this post.
So far, we have received a lot of comments from the judges and we completely agree with almost all of them. Except for one judge. Our estimates:
7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 9 and … 1. We did not get a score lower than 7, but we got the lowest score from one judge. (Before the re-deploy of the contest, we had 10 point, but that’s another story).
Why do we disagree with the score of “1” ?
We will not talk here about the fact that “1” is a job that did almost nothing of what was required in the assignment. We will take a look at the very beginning of this contest. After all, the contest was restarted and we were already evaluated by the jury with the address “0: 67d445e84934feeaea7409a5698b595cd531f1544ca5b91e231a82de1780f224”. Then we had scores of 10 and 9. We were in first place. From the jury “… 0f224” we received the following comment “Userfriendly design, easy to use for common user.” and an assessment of 8 points. For the works that the 2nd and 3rd places in the rating, underestimated grades were given for not entirely clear reasons, which can be read about in the forum thread: https://forum.everscale.network/t/contest-proposal-contests -results-interface/7057/27
It turns out that the same person evaluates the first work at 8 points, the second at 6 points. One day passes. The contest is re-deployed and the same judge gives two entries 1 point each. Note that at the time of scoring one point, the 2nd and 3rd works in the rating were again awarded.
From 8 to 1 in just one … day. We can say for sure that this judge either analyzed the work poorly for the first time, or the second time. We have a little formed an opinion about the incompetence of this jury. And that’s why.
Let’s read his brief commentary on our work:
- Search only by the address of the contest.
- At the moment we have already fixed it
- There is no threshold function for rewards.
- Yes, we did not have time to finish some points, but 2 weeks were allotted and it was necessary to show the result. We would definitely add a threshold function in the future.
- You need to download tables to your computer.
- You don’t need to download them if you are just watching the conetst. The requirements read: “the ability to export to excel” not “the ability to export to Google Spreadsheets”. But nothing prevents from adding such a function later.
- On-chain takes a long time to load.
- Of course it will take a long time to load. That’s why it is on-chain, because all data is received directly from the blockchain and this function cannot be accelerated in any way. In order to speed up the download somehow and so that the user does not have to wait, we made an off-chain option, in which the download is many times faster. None of the participants made two download options.
Let me remind that we received a “1” point for our work. Now let’s read a comment from the same jury, only for the work that received 8 points:
- There is open source, but you changed the work after the end of the contest.
- The site takes a long time to load.
- Contest search does not work accurately.
- “What is the point in your site if users themselves have to calculate what award they have received? The whole point of this contest is precisely this.”
- No jury rewards.
That is, the person changed his work, did not fulfill some of the conditions. I went in and looked at site as soon as applications were submitted. You may not believe my words, but there was an almost blank page.
We ask other members of this SubGov not to count the votes of this judge in this contest, as his actions are more like manipulating prizes.