Pointless Scoring System

[Rose]

As those on the forum have said earlier, the critique of images is the most important part of any competition. To that end, for the 2017-18 competition onwards, judges will no longer be able to preview images before judging. They will be asked to award points after each image has been commented on and to only hold back images when absolutely necessary for further comment/scoring.

Thanks for this resumé of the club's scoring systems over the years, Chris. Clearly, this is just the latest round in a debate which has been going on for many years.

For myself, I agree that the main benefit of entering competitions is to get constructive feedback. Overall, I find that lacking when it comes to the finer points of analysing an image. In my experience, there are very few judges at any level who can do it well. For that reason alone, I believe that judges should be given every assistance possible and allowed to look at the submissions beforehand rather than assessing our work blind. I would have said something at the AGM, but the announcement came as something of a surprise and I needed a bit of time to think it through.

I will also speak to Tom about this, but I am making a formal request that ahead of next season Council revisit what I see as an ill considered decision. In my opinion, it will be counterproductive and have the opposite effect of what is intended.

As you say, the topic of how we score competitions has been previously debated on the forum and, for anyone interested, the discussion can be found at this link - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2241.

Must admit I was a tad surprised to read about that decision... is it a move towards a PAGB style assessment ?

[Mike Farley]

Must admit I was a tad surprised to read about that decision... is it a move towards a PAGB style assessment ?

The reason given was to prevent judges comparing images to a similar one which might be coming up later and possibly adjusting the mark awarded accordingly. A relatively trivial matter for which it is hardly worth potentially jeopardising every competition, I would have thought. Besides, the comparison will be possible when the later shot is displayed, so it is a swings and roundabouts situation anyway.

As a further consideration, allowing a preview is a well observed convention in most, if not all, clubs and external competitions. Denying it might lead to some judges declining future invitations from the club.

[Mike Farley]

One change which I do support is that in future judges will be requested to award the mark at the same time as they deliver their critique. All too often when comments are made in one pass and then the judge goes through the images again to give the mark, it bears little relation to what they said. Admittedly, some judges are prone to such "words and figure differ" discrepancies, but it should be a less frequent occurrence and at least when it does happen it will be more apparent.

[Rose]

Must admit I was a tad surprised to read about that decision... is it a move towards a PAGB style assessment ?

The reason given was to prevent judges comparing images to a similar one which might be coming up later and possibly adjusting the mark awarded accordingly. A relatively trivial matter for which it is hardly worth potentially jeopardising every competition, I would have thought. Besides, the comparison will be possible when the later shot is displayed, so it is a swings and roundabouts situation anyway.

As a further consideration, allowing a preview is a well observed convention in most, if not all, clubs and external competitions. Denying it might lead to some judges declining future invitations from the club.

Judges get our images a whole week ahead of the comp (inc. digital versions of prints). Some come on the night with written notes.
I think there is scope for PAGB style judging for the more experienced, especially if they're considering going down the distinctions route, but for the majority of club photographers it's more important to receive considered feedback. You can see judges struggling sometimes when they're not sure how to critique an image that's suddenly in front of them. Having more time to think about feedback has to be of benefit to the photographer ?

[davidb]

The reason given was to prevent judges comparing images to a similar one which might be coming up later and possibly adjusting the mark awarded accordingly. A relatively trivial matter for which it is hardly worth potentially jeopardising every competition, I would have thought. Besides, the comparison will be possible when the later shot is displayed, so it is a swings and roundabouts situation anyway.

If the second image (in the view of the judge) is better than the first and the first has already scored TEN how can the judge then give a better score to the second? A preview makes sense and it gives the judge an overall view of the standard of the club and the combatants.

[Bill Yates]

Mike Farley writes;
[quote]"….allowing a preview is a well observed convention in most, if not all, clubs and external competitions."

Quite so, and there has been no question of requiring the judge to work without the benefit of a preview when judging a competition that must be decided on the night (Bamber Trophy, Nature, Print/DPI of the Year) That would be completely impractical.

But our standard internal print and DPI ‘competitions’ (my quotation marks) are different.

The debates at both the AGM and the forum session two weeks ago suggested that in general members put judges’ feedback ahead of marks. At the same time, they wanted the marks to reflect the comments.

That the marks so often do not reflect the comments may well be because judges are influenced by subconscious comparison with other images in the same competition and subconsciously adjust the mark they intend to award accordingly.
Who can say with any certainty? But if so it is no trivial matter for the entrant in question, and just creates confusion and frustration on his/her part.

That is what the AGM proposition was intended to avoid.

But for this to work judges who are not judging the previously mentioned one-off events must be told at the start that they are NOT required to find a winner for that night (or even to award any image the maximum 10 points unless it is deserved) As hitherto, the competition winner would still be the entrant with the highest total of marks after the final round. No change.

As for your question, Rose, about a move towards PAGB-type assessment, the answer is no.

But such assessments are common, if not the norm, for selecting from all the entries for open exhibitions. The Surrey Photographic Association (SPA) biennial - entered on a regular basis by several our members- is one example where this applies.
If exhibition selectors (judges) can do it, why not our club judges? If it did nothing else It might mean some would learn things that would improve their performance.

[Mike Farley]

If I understand Bill's contribution correctly, a preview will still be allowed for the one-off competitions but denied to judges for the regular print and DPI contests. The reason for the latter being that it will somehow lead to better correlation between comment and mark. In which case why are we apparently less concerned about the marks awarded in the competitions which are decided on the night?

Judging face many challenges. It is an inexact process subject to personal preference with no right or wrong answer. Critiques are off the cuff and need to be constructive so as to encourage rather than deter entrants, no easy task. In my experience, it often leads to bland comments for competent images and it is only when the score is given is it possible to know how the judge really rates a picture. It also occasionally results in images being dismissed for the most bizarre reasons when the judge cannot think of anything else to say. Neither is helpful to the entrant as they do receive any useful advice about how they could improve. Alongside all that, the judge is expected to keep the audience engaged and entertained during the evening. It is a wonder that as many people volunteer to become judgses as they do.

I do not comprehend how giving judges less time with our images will effect any kind of improvement. As Rose suggests, the opposite is more likely to apply. People invariably come up with better answers when they have longer to consider their response.

[toms]

Hi All,

I’ve been following these posts with some interest and have deliberately stayed off-line to gauge developments and suggestions.

The way that I read the posts to date are: -

• There is insufficient feedback from judges to promote development
• Any scoring system can be demoralising especially where low scores are given
• Current internal competitions should be more about fun rather than the trophies
• Photography is more about the journey
• For forthcoming competitions the scoring will be blind to negate judges comparing similar images prior to the actual judging/scoring
• There is an alternative pointless scoring system which recognises top images, highly commended or just commended images which are scored later
• All judging is subjective on the day.

It is as the posts identify a conundrum from which there will always be someone who is dissatisfied with the process if not the outcome.

Whether it be current scoring systems out of 10, 12, 20 or even a pointless system they are all in my opinion scored systems. The latter being the worst if adequate feedback is not given because all non-awards would get the same score which means members cannot gauge their performance against peers save that they didn’t get a top marks.

As both Mike and Wally point out the process should be about improving skill levels whether it be by imagery or presentation. In part this can only be achieved through effective and non-destructive critique/feedback.

The aim next season is to give members a greater opportunity to view others’ work either during the break or for the last 10-15 minutes at the end of the evening. Given the number of images that have been entered of late this could mean even less time for adequate feedback, thus we might achieve very little.

We will and do have the availability of sending judges digital copies of entries well before the competition date but that would only help us, given the example that Rose mentions, if judges were prepared to give fuller feedback. We could pay them extra for their time and it is an option.

We are also scheduling ‘Critique’ evenings which will allow newer members the opportunity to bring in images that they are intending to enter for competitions or just want opinions on. The critique can be by judges, advanced members of the club or visitors from other clubs. This is a practical way of improving skill levels.

Having just agreed to return to a 10 point system there is also no reason why certificates cannot be given for 10, 9.5 and 9 with the remainder scoring say 7 or 8. Oops that’s nearly the pointless system. But even then members would need feedback to improve.

I personally don’t want to see members getting scores of 3 or 4 because it achieves nothing and equally there is no point giving a high score for a poor images just to ease feelings.

Somewhere in this post is the answer and I think it just comes down to giving meaningful critique/feedback as a tool for improvement. If we can share best practice and involve others in the process, then we can all improve, and who knows even start to enjoy our photography more.

Regards,

Tom Sherrin

[Mike Farley]

Hi Tom

That is a very fair summary of the current position. Judging and competitions are an imperfect way to obtain feedback, but no one has ever come up with a better method. All the systems proposed in this thread have advantages and drawbacks. Personally, although I do not like it, I believe scores are necessary. It forces the judge to indicate what they really think, particularly when the critique has otherwise appeared to be positive. It does not help the entrant, other than to indicate that they need to reconsider the type of work they are producing.

For myself, competitions are, well, pointless. Far too often judges do not provide feedback of any value which will help me progress. Worse, some are capable of uttering the most bizarre comments. Their only real use to me is that I can occasionally include them as a source of humour in my presentations. At present, I have an ample sufficiency and do not need to compete to add to what I have already. A far more significant benefit of avoiding competition is the removal of risk to my blood pressure.

Maybe the quality of judging is something we should raise with SPA, but I would not be hopeful that it will result in any worthwhile changes. The problem is too endemic and widespread. Moreover, based on my previous experience with SPA, I doubt whether the will exists to do anything.