[Discussion] 7K Retrospective
Mirro
Alright since people started talking about 7K in retrospect and it led to some interesting discussion, let's have it here.
7k - what can we learn, what didn't work, etc etc.
[Discussion] 7K Retrospective
Forum
» Policy & Voting / Policy Discussion
» [Discussion] 7K Retrospective
Summary:
High & low & new & old & stop & go & hot & cold
It is unsportsmanlike to put any restrictions on who can participate in/win a kcon or any contest. There is nothing staff can or should do here.
Likewise this is a regular circular discussion that we have around contests, and I’m left wondering why. There isn’t really a problem here, we’re just chasing shadows searching for an issue. It’s consistently proven each time this comes up that contests aren’t rigged in anyone’s favor and that, on average, people are getting the votes they’ve earned.
EDIT: Look at SCPD’s reading/critcon for ideas on how to help. It did WONDERS for getting reads/votes on articles.
all in all, it was well-run. no shenanigans took place (that i know of) and everyone else seems happy with how it went down. i hope future contests run like this.
Votes on the top 40 entries in this contest looks like the votes on the top 40 entries in the last 3 contests, meaning that there isn't really the lack of votes issues that people were complaining about
There is a statistically significant correlation between posting order and contest rankings but effect size was very small (10% of final ranking was determined by posting order), this is down significantly from previous Kcons (4K was 30%)
There was zero correlation between article length and vote count
Every entry did get more than 30 votes it seems.
Contests should be ran as hands-off as possible. There is not much staff should do about this issue. Good articles will get promoted over bad articles and endorsing staff to begin promoting and marketing other authors' works for them reeks for intervention and manipulation. We're looking for an issue that doesn't exist.
great show everyone no notes
I think it went great overall
The reading period felt a little long and by the end it seemed like there was no real excitement. I'll have data analysis take a look to see whether 7ks were behaving like generic scps by the end.
There were some complaints about the length of the posting period and our team found that 10% of placement could be explained by posting earlier. I suggest announcing a 3 day posting period next time with a built-in unannounced 4 day extension given the last of the 3 days to confound both of these effects.
Also there were way too many entries. 180+ overall, 120 surviving, and arguably that survivorship number will dwindle further. We need to either increase readership or increase down votes, because I can't imagine anyone would be happy with restricting posting.
I don't like how many articles are being submitted but there's no staff action I think would solve that I'd also be comfortable recommending that wouldn't be an overreach of power in some way.
Otherwise, no notes. Great con.
can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day
I think it went smoothly.
/forum/t-15143216/discussion-7k-retrospective#post-