|
okay, the point system is clearly of fuckwit design in my opinion. It's rough translation into english would be "pick your top 5 tunes, the 5th being of 20% value of the first." How is that logical, your top *5* tunes are a very very pedantic scope of your tastes, they probably all rank in the upper percentiles (if you were to actually "score them" +-10% of each other. The current system is weighted the wrong way *IMO*.
Still not sure exactly what im saying?
Think of it as a race with at least a thousand entries. In the said race, only 5 people actually "rank" everyone else gets no recognition.
With current point system it portrays the 5th place holder as "20%" of first place. as in 20% of a runner. Even though there times are probably only marginally different (within 5-10% of each other).
I think it should either be
14
13
12
11
10
this way 5th place holds approximately 71% of the value of first (as to a mere 20%)
or
1
1
1
1
1
i realize in actually point scored competitions they go "9-6-3-2-1" typically. But keep in mind
a.) a lot less "competitors"
b.) "A" is the result of qualification rounds for said championship("heats") as well as the fact most competitions probably don't have a 1000 different entrants.
c.) This isn't exactly the same thing, it's more subjective, like interpretation of ice skating (judges), except in this case, the judge can't decide the score of all the competitors, just the 5 s/he chooses.
-nik ^^
___________________
| quote: | Venus: And there are troops of savage giraffes whose necks are on fire, like
the starry ejaculations of fireworks in the very pale sky of childhood
...
Venus: Enter, enter here - men of all kinds and races, victims of reality!
You who have the thirst for dreams.
...
Venus: You, on life's bitter road, drenched in hard sunlight who have the
thirst that once more the dark marvel of dreams... |
|