exPalaceDog wrote: ...Agreed, something is needed to encourage more interaction. The Old Dog would also suggest that we use the term "rate" instead of "vote" to reduce the contest aspect.Have fun.
...Agreed, something is needed to encourage more interaction.
The Old Dog would also suggest that we use the term "rate" instead of "vote" to reduce the contest aspect.
Have fun.
I think that no matter what you might wish to call it, rating or voting, it is still inviting judgement. For many, having fun is the antithesis of submitting to judgement. Their lives are filled with it, thanks very much, and they don't want to face it during their learning to appreciate the hobby. So, challenge, contest, vote, rate, compare, contrast....it all boils down to the same thing in the end....who gets bragging rights.
My
tomikawaTT wrote:I rather suspect there's a vast difference in the experience levels of the entrants in your contests. There certainly is a vast difference in their approaches to the concepts laid down. I'm something of a curmudgeon, so I probably won't enter a contest unless the "givens and druthers" exactly parallel something I'm going to do - or have done. That doesn't stop me from participating as a voting spectator. (It isn't my fault that Mark Newton's entries are so obviously his, even with no name given.
1train1 wrote: IMHO ; Contests and challenges are a waste of bandwith - 'someone else's' bandwith. Aren't these forums supposed to be the sharing of info et al ? Not to be cranky about it but isn't that why most forums discourage the - 'what color is your favourite ....?' polls that were trendy for a while.
IMHO ; Contests and challenges are a waste of bandwith - 'someone else's' bandwith. Aren't these forums supposed to be the sharing of info et al ? Not to be cranky about it but isn't that why most forums discourage the - 'what color is your favourite ....?' polls that were trendy for a while.
Just a thought.
If you think they're a waste of bandwidth, space, time, whatever, neat thing about forums.
They have a subject, if the subject has the word 'contest', you ignore it and move on.Pretty cool, eh?
For the rest of us that like these, we can read them, and enjoy what happens.
SpaceMouse wrote:Because, unlike you, most people have strong opinions about how it should be done.
fwright wrote:The folks who you most want to follow your suggestions and rules are the ones least likely to do it.
It sounds like consensus is beginning to gel. Chip, boil it down, and let's get started. (And you're right... 3 out of 4 ain't bad! Thanks for pointing that out)
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
fwright wrote: The folks who you most want to follow your suggestions and rules are the ones least likely to do it. The only method that seems to work is have a few sticky threads, such as the Givens and Druthers questions, and gently point the "design my layout for me" poster to that and a couple of references such as Chip's web page, and perhaps the Heart of Georgia or 10 Commandments of Yard Design. Then do nothing else until the original poster comes back with something based on his reading.The above process probably won't work on this forum where there are too many would-be advisors who can't resist posting to a possible "noob".
The folks who you most want to follow your suggestions and rules are the ones least likely to do it. The only method that seems to work is have a few sticky threads, such as the Givens and Druthers questions, and gently point the "design my layout for me" poster to that and a couple of references such as Chip's web page, and perhaps the Heart of Georgia or 10 Commandments of Yard Design. Then do nothing else until the original poster comes back with something based on his reading.
The above process probably won't work on this forum where there are too many would-be advisors who can't resist posting to a possible "noob".
You are right, Fred. That would be a major obstacle to the RTFM approach, of course. Thanks for pointing it out - can't believe I failed to observe that on my own. Must be getting old
fwright wrote: To me, the comments are the priceless jewels that I am seeking by posting my design in the contest. In reality, votes are a quick substitute for comments for the readers. Though I would rather have comments, the voting is far better than no response at all. At least I know some eyes have actually looked at my design, and thought about it a little. And the number of eyes viewing will be more in the contest format than if I post in a separate thread to compete with everybody else for eyeballs.<snip> For this reason only, I favor the contest format.
To me, the comments are the priceless jewels that I am seeking by posting my design in the contest. In reality, votes are a quick substitute for comments for the readers. Though I would rather have comments, the voting is far better than no response at all.
At least I know some eyes have actually looked at my design, and thought about it a little. And the number of eyes viewing will be more in the contest format than if I post in a separate thread to compete with everybody else for eyeballs.
<snip>
For this reason only, I favor the contest format.
Good point. I agree 100% with you. Comments is what you want. Not just votes. But a thread with less volume will disappear quicker. Catch-22.
Oh well - you do what you can, I guess. Good enough now beats perfect never.
fwright wrote: I do like the 32 square foot contest idea. I think keeping it open with regards to scale is reasonable. I do believe that the assumption that because an N design can put more in the same space, it will do better, is erroneous. I give our "voters" more credit than that.
I do like the 32 square foot contest idea. I think keeping it open with regards to scale is reasonable. I do believe that the assumption that because an N design can put more in the same space, it will do better, is erroneous. I give our "voters" more credit than that.
I can live with that.
Grin, Stein
wm3798 wrote: I prefer "challenge" or even "exercise". The goal is not to prove one design as being intrinsically better than another, but to help each other develop our own design that is workable in our own defined spaces, the only caveats being the available square footage, orientation to a corner of a room, and my suggested theme of an urban setting.
I prefer "challenge" or even "exercise". The goal is not to prove one design as being intrinsically better than another, but to help each other develop our own design that is workable in our own defined spaces, the only caveats being the available square footage, orientation to a corner of a room, and my suggested theme of an urban setting.
Excellent point!
wm3798 wrote:Rather than a complicated judging process, why not just make the designs available for comment and critique, asking the designer first state what he likes about it, why he did what he did, and talk a little about the operations he plans. We can then comment on the designs we feel like commenting about, offer praise, suggestions for improvement, and question things we find questionable.
Rather than a complicated judging process, why not just make the designs available for comment and critique, asking the designer first state what he likes about it, why he did what he did, and talk a little about the operations he plans. We can then comment on the designs we feel like commenting about, offer praise, suggestions for improvement, and question things we find questionable.
Agreed, something is needed to encourage more interaction.
Have fun
Stein et al
Having been through the "design a layout for me" battles on another forum, I'll say just one point on that subject. The folks who you most want to follow your suggestions and rules are the ones least likely to do it. The only method that seems to work is have a few sticky threads, such as the Givens and Druthers questions, and gently point the "design my layout for me" poster to that and a couple of references such as Chip's web page, and perhaps the Heart of Georgia or 10 Commandments of Yard Design. Then do nothing else until the original poster comes back with something based on his reading.
Stein, you are correct. The discussions of contest criteria keep bogging down as each seeks to push criteria that favor his particular design philosophy or interests. And I'm guilty of that. Personally, I prefer the contest be as open as practical. Why haven't I entered in the past? I've started all 3 contests. But my mastery of XtrkCad just isn't. Translating my ideas through XtrkCad takes a lot of time (for me) that I need for other activities.
And I also agree with others that the "voting" should be just as easy as we can make it. The voting and the design efforts are the heart of the contest, and both parts need to be encouraged to have as wide a participation as can be obtained. To me, the comments are the priceless jewels that I am seeking by posting my design in the contest. In reality, votes are a quick substitute for comments for the readers. Though I would rather have comments, the voting is far better than no response at all. At least I know some eyes have actually looked at my design, and thought about it a little. And the number of eyes viewing will be more in the contest format than if I post in a separate thread to compete with everybody else for eyeballs.
As to whether the event should be a contest or challenge, to me it's semantic games. As I said earlier, more design review input is gained by allowing votes than by requiring comments. The cost is that the quality of the comment inherent in a vote is much less than a thoughtful comment. For this reason only, I favor the contest format.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Stein,
Why do you want to make life so difficult?
Mark
SpaceMouse wrote: Like I said, you can't please everyone.
Like I said, you can't please everyone.
True. How about just giving the contest format a rest for a while ? We have had three contests in fairly short order (4x8 H0 scale layout, 10x12' room layout any scale and 2x8 H0 shelf module).
In every one we have seen the same things:
1) Some people seem to feel a need to push the "prototypical is superior to freelance" fight at every chance. Some people seems to feel a need to push the "N scale is superior to H0 scale" fight at every chance. Some people seem to feel a need to complain about feeling excluded if the theme or scale does not fit what they are interested in.
In the end, in the attempt to be inclusive to everyone, you tend to end up with rules that at the same time are both too elaborate and too vague.
2) Each contest generates maybe 200-250 posts to the forums. Most of these posts are meta-discussions on what the contest rules should be like or how the contest rules should be interpreted. Maybe 50 or so of the posts are votes.
Maybe 20-25 of the posts (10% of the total number of posts related to each contest) actually discusses the submissions and/or the layout design challenges/options.
Analysis and critique of the submissions with discussions of what could be improved, done different etc, is not really the main focus when this stuff is organized as a contest. The main focus is on agreeing on rules, collecting votes and declaring a winner.
I submit that the contest format, even though it has generated quite a few interesting submitted designs, may not be the optimal way of generating sharing of ideas and discussion of various ways design challenges could be met.
If sharing ideas and creating discussion is the main purpose of the exercise. But is that the purpose of having these contests ? Maybe the most important question is not "how" ? Maybe it is "why" ?
If I assume that the purpose is to share ideas and learn from each other. Why not just do regular forum threads with a fixed format ?
Use a fixed prefix (e.g "Design Theme: <something>") to signal that your thread conforms to certain minimum standard (and thus are worth taking part in).
What standards ? Off the top of my head:
To prevent the forum from being flooded with "Design my layout for me, thanks and bye" posts under the guise of being general "Design Theme:" posts, require that whoever wants to use the "Design Theme:" prefix on their post title will have to write their post in a specific format, that forces the poster to do some very basic homework for himself (or herself) before posting that initial thread that kicks off a Theme or Challenge.
It should also be a requirement that a person who starts a "Design Theme:" subject must summarize the lessons learned from the discussion on some web page which Chip (SpaceMouse) will link to. If Chip is willing, of course.
One requirement for the format of an initial post in a new Design Theme:/Design Challenge: thread should be that the initial must contains a link to a web page that contais links to the summaries of all previous such threads.
If someone starts a Design Theme thread without having done their homework (or have had a theme before without following up on the summary part), then whoever feels like it should feel free to point out the right way of doing things in the new thread, and then not follow up the new thread with answers.
Anyone who starts a Design Theme thread (or takes part in a Design Theme thread) should be prepared to have their statements or layouts discussed and possibly questioned. But not their motives or their persons.
If someone starts a Design Theme thread and have bumped it more than 3 times without having gotten any fruitful discussion going, it is time to ask the moderators to lock the thread.
A handful of common sense (?) rules like that. But "common sense is an uncommon virtue", as some wag put it. What constitutes common sense always can be debated
Some possible subjects:
Or whatever catches someone's fancy.
Does this suggestion makes any sense at all ? Or is it just hot air ?
Smile, Stein
markpierce wrote: Ahh soo.... But can a Sumo wrestler beat an average sprinter in a 100-yard dash?
Ahh soo.... But can a Sumo wrestler beat an average sprinter in a 100-yard dash?
Sure.
tomikawaTT wrote: markpierce wrote: It is only fair if a "contest" is based on a single modeling scale. Do we compete drag race cars with eighteen-wheeler heavy haulers in competition? No! One is designed for speed and the other for pulling power.Ah. But in Sumo, where the only criterion is one's overall ranking, a physically small rishiki can find himself across the ring from somebody half a meter taller and twice as heavy - and once the bout starts, excuses aren't accepted. HO can have 4 times more stuff than O, N can have 4 times more than HO, and Z can have 4 times more stuff than N in the same space. (snip) That is EXACTLY why I proposed that the area should be defined in Armstrong squares (which were explained in an insert to a recent Model Railroader, and many times elsewhere.) Perhaps they can be defined in size for each scale (e.g., 24" radius and a square 28.25" on a side for HO) so somebody who might want to define a super-broad curve as, "Standard," would be kept in check.Nevertheless, if for example there is a competition for an HO-scale layout in a 15x30-foot room, an N-scaler can submit an HO plan and chuckle to himself that he can do the same thing in 8X17 (if the plan accommodates the truth that human operators don't shrink with scale.)MarkAnd now to drop another rock in the well! Whether 32 square feet or 8 Armstrong squares, do we charge a second deck as part of the basic area, or do we charge the footprint on the floor? Put another way, can we get "free" staging on a lower level? How about a traverser?I'm beginning to suspect that the real problem is one of cramming people into a box when they prefer to think outside of the box.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
markpierce wrote: It is only fair if a "contest" is based on a single modeling scale. Do we compete drag race cars with eighteen-wheeler heavy haulers in competition? No! One is designed for speed and the other for pulling power.
It is only fair if a "contest" is based on a single modeling scale. Do we compete drag race cars with eighteen-wheeler heavy haulers in competition? No! One is designed for speed and the other for pulling power.
Ah. But in Sumo, where the only criterion is one's overall ranking, a physically small rishiki can find himself across the ring from somebody half a meter taller and twice as heavy - and once the bout starts, excuses aren't accepted.
HO can have 4 times more stuff than O, N can have 4 times more than HO, and Z can have 4 times more stuff than N in the same space. (snip)
That is EXACTLY why I proposed that the area should be defined in Armstrong squares (which were explained in an insert to a recent Model Railroader, and many times elsewhere.) Perhaps they can be defined in size for each scale (e.g., 24" radius and a square 28.25" on a side for HO) so somebody who might want to define a super-broad curve as, "Standard," would be kept in check.
Nevertheless, if for example there is a competition for an HO-scale layout in a 15x30-foot room, an N-scaler can submit an HO plan and chuckle to himself that he can do the same thing in 8X17 (if the plan accommodates the truth that human operators don't shrink with scale.)Mark
Nevertheless, if for example there is a competition for an HO-scale layout in a 15x30-foot room, an N-scaler can submit an HO plan and chuckle to himself that he can do the same thing in 8X17 (if the plan accommodates the truth that human operators don't shrink with scale.)
And now to drop another rock in the well! Whether 32 square feet or 8 Armstrong squares, do we charge a second deck as part of the basic area, or do we charge the footprint on the floor? Put another way, can we get "free" staging on a lower level? How about a traverser?
I'm beginning to suspect that the real problem is one of cramming people into a box when they prefer to think outside of the box.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Define "most people"... The handful of usual suspects who submit entries? I think that as a sampling of the thousands of registered members to this site, this hardly qualifies as "most people."
People in this case are those that bother to communicate to me about it. I don't care if people don't to play the game, each contest seems to have 15-20 entrants. And I have found that I can't please everyone. Just on the matter of scale, in the last three posts, we have one that says we should have one scale, one that says all scales, and another that says squares. All three have valid points. In three contests, we've done all three (sort of), and in each case someone bitched about it.
With the exception of the first one where I just said "let's do it," What I've done is listened to everyone voice an opinion and tried to find a middle path. No doubt I've ticked a few people off--some to the point they don't feel like playing anymore. But each time we get a few new people.
In your case, I said I liked your suggestion about 32 sq ft. I even went along with open scale. No one has weighed in on the room size limitation but you so I backed off on that. But since you were the only one who said it shouldn't be a contest, I didn't go along with that. But you only got 3 out of your four points and you're angry you didn't get four out of four.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
It is only fair if a "contest" is based on a single modeling scale. Do we compete drag race cars with eighteen-wheeler heavy haulers in competition? No! One is designed for speed and the other for pulling power. HO can have 4 times more stuff than O, N can have 4 times more than HO, and Z can have 4 times more stuff than N in the same space. Obviously then, the Z scale layout will have more operational and scenic opportunities than the larger scales, but that is not a valid comparison. There are trade-offs between more "stuff" in the smaller scales and the advantages of larger scale which cannot be weighed by just comparing track plans. It is obvious that some of those modeling in the smaller scales don't want scale limitations because their layout plans can include more "stuff" and are thus more "competitive" as in race cars are faster than dump trucks.
SpaceMouse wrote:...Because, unlike you, most people have strong opinions about how it should be done.
...Because, unlike you, most people have strong opinions about how it should be done.
SpaceMouse wrote: ...And I imagine that some of the designers won't want to design something just for the heck of it. Without the competition and striving to succeed, it isn't worth their time...
...And I imagine that some of the designers won't want to design something just for the heck of it. Without the competition and striving to succeed, it isn't worth their time...
I think people don't participate because the rules create a design situation that doesn't apply to their situation. The competition aspect doesn't really enter into it.
And that's why I think it would be a valuable exercise to provide a forum where individuals can accept a design challenge that actually allows them to design something that meets their needs. Placing an arbitrary platform size or shape, or changing the available space to limit the designer's ability to work in his prefered scale make the process something that "isn't worth their time."
It's pretty obvious that you're going to do what you want to do. I thought I presented a pretty simple proposal that offered a lot of flexibility for the participants. But there are those who would rather get wrapped around the axle with rules and judging criteria than promote something that might get someone to start building a layout.
Heaven forbid we should push ourselves away from the keyboard for a few moments and actually build something. (Which is what I'll be doing now...)
Chip,
Somewhat - or maybe it isn't.
More than a few golf tournaments have amateurs playing with the pros. Some of the amateurs play the whole tournament for a score. Others play on Pro-Am Day, and get to tell their buddies, "I played with the Big Boys." Some will add, "I watched (fillintheblank) all day, and now I know how to (putt, chip out of the rough,...)"
I rather suspect there's a vast difference in the experience levels of the entrants in your contests. There certainly is a vast difference in their approaches to the concepts laid down. I'm something of a curmudgeon, so I probably won't enter a contest unless the "givens and druthers" exactly parallel something I'm going to do - or have done. That doesn't stop me from participating as a voting spectator. (It isn't my fault that Mark Newton's entries are so obviously his, even with no name given.)
Thanks for a lot of unexpected enjoyment.
wm3798 wrote: Why do we have to make figuring out the parameters the most challenging part of the project? Lee
Because, unlike you, most people have strong opinions about how it should be done.
One of the perk contest idea, is that people get to run their idea up the flagpole and see how it does. Just like any scientific experiment can found to be flawed by a person who knows what to look for, any layout can be criticized. When you see what a group of people think about it by ranking it against others, you may see that although it was criticized, it wasn't half bad.
And I imagine that some of the designers won't want to design something just for the heck of it. Without the competition and striving to succeed, it isn't worth their time.
On the other hand, a person who just wants to do it as an exercise can still do it and be happy just to get it done and not worry about the voting aspect. Those people can ignore the results. Frankly there were so many good layout is the last contest that I was embarrassed that some of them didn't win. But those people also expressed to me that they would try again and do better next time.
I don't see the downside to a contest. If you don't like the contest concept but want to play anyway there is no harm in it. All the entries get critiqued pretty well when all is said and done.
Stop saying "contest".
In my opinion, scaling the space using Armstrong Squares does not provide an equal footing for a real layout situation. The 32 square feet is based on the good ole sheet of plywood (however reconfigured). A G scaler doesn't get a larger sheet of plywood when he goes to Lowe's, and Home Depot doesn't provide a smaller sheet to the N scaler. Under my scenario, we all start with the same playing field, literally.
I think there were some dynamite ideas that came out of the 9x12 room design project, and I thought of the corner idea based on the fact that not all of us have a whole room to work in.
The point of the exercise as I defined it is to promote individual achievement, not pit one scale or one design against another. I prefer "challenge" or even "exercise". The goal is not to prove one design as being intrinsically better than another, but to help each other develop our own design that is workable in our own defined spaces, the only caveats being the available square footage, orientation to a corner of a room, and my suggested theme of an urban setting.
Configuration, Givens and Druthers, scale, and operating style would be entirely up to the individual designer. The outcome will hopefully be giving some guys an opportunity to really think through a track plan that they can ultimately build in the space they have.
Think of this more as a lab project than a final exam...
Why do we have to make figuring out the parameters the most challenging part of the project?
That's why I suggested shelving the "contest" notion. As a "challenge," there's really no need to judge. I'd like to see how people will respond to the simple criteria to get off the dime and design something that will fit in their own house, i.e, something they might actually commence to build (and support our hosts by spending large gobs of cash with their many advertisers!!)
TZ,
I agree, however, the more defined I get the more people want less constraints and I end up compromising and relaxing the contest.
exPalaceDog wrote:PS The Old Hound is also trying to suggest something to reduce the workload on the contest manager.
Exactly, Chris.
My thought had been more about making use of 32 square feet of plywood surface.. a way to show how to take the beginner board and make it more.. so I am not sure I would want to see a penalty on pop-ups.. I think that the voters will exact a penalty on a plan that doesnt look appealing to maintain and operate..
Chris
I don't think it should be limited to a prototype scene. If you want to apply one to the challenge, that's fine, just define what you're doing. Freelance should be available too. I think the looser the limitations (aside from available space and an urban theme) the more participation you'll see.
The pop up issue isn't a requirement. To clarify, if you design something that requires a pop up, the "hole" won't be charged against your allotment of 32 sq. ft. If you don't need one, no problem. I believe this parameter will allow for shelf style layouts, an L with the operator pit behind it, a U shape with a peninsula, the options are limited only by the square footage.
As for configuration, if someone has a 65' long basement (my sister does, and I'd sell my soul for that basement!) and thinks a 6" wide z scale shelf would make an interesting design, I've got no beef with that, other than it needs work into the corner issue for at least part of it.
My thought is to use this exercise as an opportunity for armchair guys to recognize the space they might have but haven't thought about, and get them moving toward building a layout.
Texas Zepher wrote:Well as near as I can tell here is a summary of the ideas so far:exPalaceDog - 1 x 8 N-scale book shelf switching module
Well as near as I can tell here is a summary of the ideas so far:
exPalaceDog wrote: As for the next project, the Old Dog would suggest something on the lines of the book shelf N-The straight modules were 7.5" by 48", the corner modules were 32" by 32". Loop modules, 24" by 48" were described.
As for the next project, the Old Dog would suggest something on the lines of the book shelf N-The straight modules were 7.5" by 48", the corner modules were 32" by 32". Loop modules, 24" by 48" were described.
Texas Zepher wrote:And I'll throw out my idea from another thread - the Hoboken Industrial on an "h", "F", double "L", straight "Z" or other pre-determine, pre-sized shelf, configuration in some other-than-standard-scale neutral size (like 1/100th).
And I'll throw out my idea from another thread - the Hoboken Industrial on an "h", "F", double "L", straight "Z" or other pre-determine, pre-sized shelf, configuration in some other-than-standard-scale neutral size (like 1/100th).
Sounds Interesting!
SpaceMouse wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: The "colorful" representations got higher marks then the black & white ones. I sort of noticed this in the prior constests as well. Concept does not necessarily win over a good looking picture of a lesser concept.I noticed this as well and I attempted to compensate. Unfortunately I failed miserably because I could not figure out my paint program. What I ended up with was not very good and I wasted a lot of time that could have gone toward improving my layout--which by the time of the end of the contest, I had figured could use some tweaking. Presentation goes for the non-discerning vote.
Texas Zepher wrote: The "colorful" representations got higher marks then the black & white ones. I sort of noticed this in the prior constests as well. Concept does not necessarily win over a good looking picture of a lesser concept.
I noticed this as well and I attempted to compensate. Unfortunately I failed miserably because I could not figure out my paint program. What I ended up with was not very good and I wasted a lot of time that could have gone toward improving my layout--which by the time of the end of the contest, I had figured could use some tweaking.
Presentation goes for the non-discerning vote.
That is the reason the Old Flea Bag suggested a system where the layouts would be RATED on a set of criteria. That would make presentation less of a factor and encourage morr discerning voting.
PS The Old Hound is also trying to suggest something to reduce the workload on the contest manager.