Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Conservapedia talk:Contest4 (view source)
Revision as of 18:31, January 12, 2008
, 18:31, January 12, 2008agree with Jazz
:::Speaking from experience from the last contest, it's just too much work to judge each and every entry. I believe the first contest was judged this way and it took more time to judge than it did to perform the contest. For this last contest Geo and I individually checkted a random sampling (of, roughly 10% of each person's contributions) and browsed over the rest. Then if we thought we needed to look further we did. That seemed to work very well, especially because, for the most part, everyone was honest with their interpretations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:::Speaking from experience from the last contest, it's just too much work to judge each and every entry. I believe the first contest was judged this way and it took more time to judge than it did to perform the contest. For this last contest Geo and I individually checkted a random sampling (of, roughly 10% of each person's contributions) and browsed over the rest. Then if we thought we needed to look further we did. That seemed to work very well, especially because, for the most part, everyone was honest with their interpretations. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, checking a random sampling is a good way to review. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:31, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==== Copy & Pasted pages ====
==== Copy & Pasted pages ====