dan,
thanks for enlightening us all,
You seem to be our only contact with google please understand our
anxiety.
For innovative and "crazy" ideas like my submission, I don't care
about server hits (but yes I was whinning). The only thing that we
hoped for, is that 4 judges read at least the documentation because of
the fear that one judge may not grasp the whole meaning.
I must say we wrote the documentation and had in mind that it will be
read loudly in a room of judges like a presentation...(this was false
though we didn't understand correctly the judging proccess).
aris
On 4 Μάϊος, 07:22, "Dan Morrill" <
morri...@google.com> wrote:
> Ahh -- we've not been rigorous in consistently naming these various rounds
> and phases. Let me try and adopt that terminology for this thread, and
> explain again.
> ADC 1 == this $5,000,000 prize event going on now.
> ADC 2 == the second $5,000,000 prize event that will begin later this year.
> ADC 1 Round 1 == open participation with the deadline of 14 April, with 50
> winners
> ADC 1 Round 2 == participation limited to the winners of ADC 1 Round 1, with
> 20 "final" winners
> ADC 1 Round 1 Phase 1 == reducing the original set of 1,788 submissions to
> 100 finalists
> ADC 1 Round 1 Phase 2 == picking the 50 ADC 1 Round 1 winners from the 100
> finalists
>
> Okay, phew. :) With those definitions, here is where we are:
>
> - We sent out the submissions to judging a few days after the submission
> deadline of 14 April, and judging began.
> - Our 100 or so judges received the judging guidelines we provided,
> reviewed their assigned submissions, and reported data back to us.
> - Late last week, we applied our outlier mitigation techniques,
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Finn Kennedy <
finn.kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dan,
>
> > thank you for the responses. A couple of follow ups.
>
> > With Phase 2 I meant the 100 being winnowed down to 50. From the ADC
> > Judging Process page:
>
> > "In Phase 2, the 100 highest-scoring submissions will be all be sent to a
> > new panel of judges (which may or may not include one or more of the judges
> > who participated in Phase I judging).
> > ...
> > The 50 entries with the highest scores in Phase 2 judging will move on to
> > Round 2 of the Challenge..."
>
> > Just for clarification, are there again groups of judges assigned to look
> > at a subset of the top 100 entries? Or are the entire set of entries judged
> > by all the judges in Phase 2?
>
> > Is the "outlier" procedure still used for Phase 2? By outlier I mean the
> > review of scores not matching the rest of the scores for the application
> > (mentioned on the board).
>
> > I totally understand the want to have a fair playing field. It would not
> > be fair to extend advantages to winners that can make the trip to Google
> > I/O.
>
> > Finn
>
> > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Dan Morrill <
morri...@google.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, for all intents and purposes, Phase II begins as soon as we announce
> >> the 50 Phase I winners. It's not like we could stop the winners from
> >> starting right away, anyway. :) It looks like we are still on track to
> >> announce those winners next week.
> >> A different set of judges is reviewing the 100 applications. The top 100
> >> applications are "reset" and rejudged from scratch by a different group of
> >> judges, who have no knowledge of the previous judges' scores.
>
> >> We're thinking about ways to work with the 50 Phase I winners, but that
> >> might not necessarily include anything formal at Google I/O. (We don't want
> >> to require anyone to attend, and we don't want to give any of them an unfair
> >> advantage.)
>
> >> - Dan
>
> >>> adc_judging.html <
http://code.google.com/android/adc_judging.html>), I