Peer Judging

[Robert Thacker-]

So I realize that we, the people of FIRST, have to look and rank these final 5 Inventor submissions to decide who wins. Well, I don't know about you guys, but I have never had to judge a submission before.

So I think we should all use this thread to discuss how to judge these awards. What do we look for in design, presentation, the process, etc.

What do you think?

[Phil Ross]

sounds like a good idea to me. It something that we have to do, so we might as well do it on a thread

[JasJ002]

I'm not disagreeing with what Autodesk is doing, but I think the problem with this new sytem is that teams always built their robots and websites to adhear to the judges. Now that we are supposed to create a site that pleases our peers, we don't at which angle to aproach the problem. Younger minded students tend to look towards the more technologically advanced submissions, while judges tend to adhere to a much more complicated submission. What shall we do?

[Phil Ross]

Well, we do need to impress our peers for this. If you create something that is both pleasing to look at and everything that the judges have looked for in past years you can create a winning entry. This is the easiest way to approach this problem.

[pmax]

I can assure you that technological excellence has been the primary aspect the judges have looked at in past years. We have asked for other items (process photos, website, etc) to both provide some context for the submissions, and also to help differentiate the top 10% of the teams.

If you are using good engineering practices, documenting them, facilitiating the tools you have, and can present this well, you are doing everything you can to compete for the award.

Our goal for the peer judging aspect was to generate excitement and have everyone feel they were a part of the decision.

Of course, any feedback in the process is appreciated. This award is for your hard work!

Regards,
Pete

[Robert Thacker-]

So, overall, I feel it's crucial to regard the process and documentation of the robot's design. So an entry should pertain this, show their robot, and be neat to look at (rendering and such).

But I feel that teams may look at an amazing website and perhaps not a great inventor drawing behind it (not using advanced functions and such). Are we going to veiw the files along with the website? The award should be a paring of the two, in my best opinion. What do you guys think? Are we going to veiw those files?

[JasJ002]

One problem that I have heard from years past about peer judging in the Regional competition for animation, is that there are people judging who are in no way qualified to make such a decision. I'm just scared that the 90% of FIRST that couldn't tell you the difference between a hole and an extrusion will be deciding who the champion is.

[Robert Thacker-]

That is a growing concern for me too. I wonder if student-picked national awards is such a very good idea.

That's why I feel it's important to discuss what we want to look for in judging these award entries.

I think that a great idea would be a student's choice and a Judge's choice award winners.

[Phil Ross]

yea, when looking back at the main assembly of our robot. all the different components to it and extrusion and others parts that people wont be able to tell the difference between unless they open up the files and look at the browser. this is something that has been on my mind for awhile, we should try to make it clear to people who are voting that not everything is what it seems to be.

A peer-voted winner and a judges choice seems to be a logical and reasonable solution to this and I wish it wasnt to late to do anything about it for this year.

[Robert Thacker-]

Anybody know when the top 5 will be announced?

[Phil Ross]

about a week or two before championship. btw, i was just looking over your submission it looks great. I expected nothing less than that from what kressly has told me about your CADD work.

great job and good luck