APSE judging question

[tenacious_g]

Sorry if this topic has already been brought up, but is there any benefit to APSE posting in advance a list of contest judges and the categories they will be judging?

http://apse.dallasnews.com/contest/2008/2009judgingroster.html

I've judged in the past and found out what we were judging only after we arrived at the judging convention. I can't figure out any good reason anyone needs to know ahead of time who is judging what, but can think of some real scenarios of friends talking ahead of time about entries with potential judges.

I'm not saying anyone will come right out and approach a judge about hooking him or her up, but I can see knowing a judge who is covering a category you're in and shooting an e-mail along the lines of, "Hey, I see you're judging (insert category here) at the convention. Sweet, you might see my article on coach so-and-so. Good luck!"

Maybe they've been doing this in the past years since I've judged and I just now noticed, but this is the first time I can remember preposting of the judging roster with specific categories already assigned.

 

[Moderator1]

Does a group normally judge that many categories?

 

[tenacious_g]

Does a group normally judge that many categories?

I judged once in the past five years and every group had three categories to judge. Our group judged two categories and broke them down into 20 finalists, of which another group picked the 10 winners out of those finalists.

Our third category was judging a final stack of 20 some other group had whittled down to the 20 finalists.

 

[EE94]

not unusual for a group to have more than one writing category

I wouldn't want to have to do more than one section, though. With fewer people attending, doing Sunday Under-40,000 will be a bear

 

[jimluttrell1963]

last year was the first time in my experience they published the list ahead of time. i found it a great convenience and was glad they did it again. you can find out ahead of time who you have to speak with if you don't already know people in your group; and listening to the reading of that roster can be monotonous. plus, i guess, if someone wanted to skip saturday night, perhaps as a cost-saving measure, they could.

as for campaigning, with a wink or a nudge or more overtly, i've never seen it done on site, where it would be just as easy. that said, i don't think i would respond very well to someone making a pitch.

 

[Pendleton]

Interesting to see some of the big-league newspapers getting their expenses paid by APSE. That's how desperate they were for judges this year

 

[Rhody31]

Is there a weekly publication category at all?

 

[SF_Express]

last year was the first time in my experience they published the list ahead of time. i found it a great convenience and was glad they did it again. you can find out ahead of time who you have to speak with if you don't already know people in your group; and listening to the reading of that roster can be monotonous. plus, i guess, if someone wanted to skip saturday night, perhaps as a cost-saving measure, they could.

as for campaigning, with a wink or a nudge or more overtly, i've never seen it done on site, where it would be just as easy. that said, i don't think i would respond very well to someone making a pitch.

APSE judging conspiracy theories are the most overblown, posited by somebody who has never done it notions on the planet.

I judged a lot of years. Never saw a single one. It's just an assumption made by a lot of people who have never been there and, dare I say, felt they should have won some year and didn't.

I'm not saying there are not preconceived notions brought into judging of sections or writers whose style makes their identities obvious. I'm saying that the idea that groups of people sit around and figure this out ahead of time is, in my experience, non-existent.

 

[ScribePharisee]

I just looked at the rules on the APSE site. This is a crock, weak-minded way to try to regulate a good ol boy network. Obliterate the name of the paper? Let's see. I guess any reference to said professional team, certain colleges or high schools wouldn't identify the publication? There are plenty of cities across America with distinctive names. So do you obliterate those throughout the story? Seriously?

 

[Hank]

Agreed on the conspiracy part. There are none indeed. Unless You count the Sentinel shills ducking their heads in every room to see how they're faring.

But sending sports editors to Vegas for a week in these times is a crock. I couldn't possibly look my staff in the eye and tell them I was going to ... what ... judge which 6-page section looks the prettiest?

 

[silvercharm]

Will there ever be an easier year to win an APSE? I've got to think entries will be down significantly, maybe not half, but by one-third wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Moderator1]

I don't know anything about any conspiracy theories. Never heard them in my brief time as an SE.
I know a lot of folks on the judging list and think very highly of them. I would vouch for their intergrity with my life.
The secretary-treasurer of APSE is my former boss and a guy I'd kill for at his request.
All that said, it does seem a lot of winners come from among the judging panel. I have no stats to back this up. I do recall several times over the years seeing papers that had never won squat before winning something. And they had someone their judging. Interesting.
On purpose? I can't believe. But it is human nature, I suppose. I'm eager to see what this year's list of winners looks like.

 

[tenacious_g]

APSE judging conspiracy theories are the most overblown, posited by somebody who has never done it notions on the planet.

I judged a lot of years. Never saw a single one. It's just an assumption made by a lot of people who have never been there and, dare I say, felt they should have won some year and didn't.

I'm not saying there are not preconceived notions brought into judging of sections or writers whose style makes their identities obvious. I'm saying that the idea that groups of people sit around and figure this out ahead of time is, in my experience, non-existent.

I've judged, too. I was never approached by a specific entrant, but was asked by people from a paper if I had got to to a particular article yet in a large-circulation category. It was nothing more than that, and on site I don't think there are any issues I would say suggest conspiracy.

And if, as JimLutrell196 suggests, it is beneficial to know who you are judging with ahead of time, that's fine to post the groupings. I just don't see the point in telling everyone in the contest ahead of time the three people in charge of their specific entries.

I'm not screaming foul. I'm just asking if there is really a benefit to knowing ahead of time who is judging a particular category. Why leave to door open to suggestion? That's all.

 

[The Granny]

The secretary-treasurer of APSE is my former boss and a guy I'd kill for at his request.

You're just saying that because he gives you free wine.

 

[BH33]

I just looked at the rules on the APSE site. This is a crock, weak-minded way to try to regulate a good ol boy network. Obliterate the name of the paper? Let's see. I guess any reference to said professional team, certain colleges or high schools wouldn't identify the publication? There are plenty of cities across America with distinctive names. So do you obliterate those throughout the story? Seriously?

Having judged last year, I think you're way off base here. Getting rid of all references to the writer and the paper makes sense because it limits - if not eliminates - judges favoring a particular writer or paper.

Yes, the articles will reference team names, but just because you're reading about the Miami Dolphins doesn't mean the Miami Herald wrote it. You could probably narrow it down to a certain number of papers it could be, but believe me, when you're going through so many entries, you're not worried about figuring out which paper wrote them. You're simply looking for well-written copy.

Is it a fool-proof system? No. But, speaking from experience, it's a good way to have the judges focus in on the copy they are reading and not on the person who wrote it or the paper that published it.

In response to the original post on this thread - I really don't believe there's any kind of conspiracy going on. I think the people who go to judge are just there to honestly find the best copy and the best sections in the country. I know that was the case in my group.

 

[tenacious_g]

In response to the original post on this thread - I really don't believe there's any kind of conspiracy going on. I think the people who go to judge are just there to honestly find the best copy and the best sections in the country. I know that was the case in my group.

I guess I shouldn't have brought this up because I'm not saying anything about some conspiracy, but came across that way. Again, I have judged and it was a hell of a lot of work and every bit worth it.

I DON'T THINK ITS A CONSPIRACY. I do think telling people ahead of time who is judging a particular category opens the door to that conspiracy talk, so I just wanted to ask why do it? There may be some reason to do it I'm not aware of.