Scoring and juring in contests

Hi!

We just introduced a new scoring system and new scorecard in the contests. But unfortunatelly it was not the best. During the juring we found a lot of weakness.
That's why I'd like to ask you to tell me how it works in your country. If you also use scorecard please let me know what is scored and how it works. If you use other method, different than scorecard please let me know how it works.

Thanks in advance,
G

Usually comparative judging of what is on the table is the best way. The finer points and perspectives will surely make this another long discussion... - Mark

I belong to a modelling club here, we've already organised 13 editions of our contest. After trying some methods of score and the like, in the end it always finishes as a debate between the judges discussing just who deserves 3rd, 2nd and 1st prices.

Scoring different aspects of some models using the same "standards" for all them is just impossible.

I agree with Mark that comparitive judging is the best route in a judged contest, because oftentimes it's difficult to hold all models to the same standard.

However, some things to keep in mind when judging are the following, in order (in my view) of importance.

#1 - Quality of Build - This one is very obvious. No matter how many modifications or detail parts were added, a poorly constructed model should never place above a well constructed model.

Concentrate firstly on the basics. Are the glue joints tidy? Is the paint smoothly and uniformly applied? Were mold lines and sprue attachment points removed? Does the model set level upon all its wheels? Do all panels align? Do all functioning parts operate smoothly? Did any pieces fall off during the judging process?

These are the primary, and most important critiques of any class of model.

#2 - Ingenuity & Presentation - This is more subjective depending on the class, but it's easily applied. For instance, in a replica stock class, a well presented and ingenius model would be one of a very specific prototype (i.e. one Ferrari 250GTO in particular, or a Mopar muscle car built to an exact option list).

The more difficult, or the higher quality, of the build according to the class parameters equals the more ingenius and better presented. Juha Airo, for example, is one of the masters of ingenuity (c'mon, guy turned a 1955 Chevy into a 1956 Studebaker!)

#3 - Class Standard - When a model is competing for a class win on top of a coveted Best in Show or Best Detail/Paint/Engineering award, then it must completely represent the class in which it is entered. A tuner class winner should not only be simply a good tuner model, but it should be an example that demonstrates all the things that define the category. You should be able to point at a class winning model and say "Now that is a Street Rod/Tuner/Lowrider/Custom/Race Car/Replica Stock!"

I'm curious what didn't go well.

When I judge car models, I pay attention to the following three key elements.

1) Presentation
Based chiefly on initial impression, this determines the creativity of the model like unique paint scheme, unusual application of kit and aftermarket parts / decals, display base etc. Even a poorly built or painted model deserves a certain level of credit if it visually stands out from the rest.

2) Building
Based on a careful examination of the building quality, including accuracy. What I usually look for are...
- elimination of seam lines and manufacturing defects like sink marks etc.
- fit of parts (bumpers, windshield, aero parts, seats, dashboard etc)
- wheel alignment (if camber is added, check the symmetry)
- application of mechanical related photo-etch and aftermarket parts (like brake rotors, seatbelt hardware, engine components etc.)

3) Finishing
Careful examination of paint, application. Accuracy is also scored if a model represents a particular vehicle.
- evenness
- smoothness
- decal application
- application of ornamental photo-etch and aftermarket parts (badges, emblems etc.)

Suppose you give 10 points on each element, the max is 30 points. If a contest has "the best of x, y, etc,", 2 and 3 can be subdivided, like 2a: exterior building, 2b: interior building, 2c: engine / chassis details, and 3a: exterior finishing, 3b interior finishing, 3c: engine / chassis details, and you have 7 elements to look for with the max point of 70. The best interior award should go to the model which has received the highest in 2b and 3b combined (max 20 points), and the best paint is 3a+ 3b + 3c (max 30 points), for example.

This is just an example, and if you think one factor is more important than another, you can curve the distribution by changing the max point on each, like 6 on presentation, 8 on building and 10 on finishing.

The problem of this method is many contests have only a few hours to finish the scoring, and the standardized method takes just too long. (This can be easily fixed by using a laptop and Excel!)

Another scoring method I've come across, that I really like, is purely based on the participants' impression. Each participants receive a score card, pick the top 3 and the best of x, y and z etc, and of course the best of the show. Then they submit the card to the organizer for scoring There's no such thing as subjective opinion by so-called experts, and each judge's shortcomings are covered by the others, so the scores are normalized and fair.

Thank you for the quick replys.

Here in Hungary we have only 4 category in civil vehicles - race and street cars, bikes and truck. Because of the low number of participants.

I think that one of the weakness of our scorecard is that it containes too many elements (ca. 20) . It makes the judging long and difficult. according to your tips I wil suggest to reduce to max 5 like general, paintwork, interior, engine and chasiss/suspension/wheels. We scored on a 5 pont scale. But I think it would be better to use 10 point scale.

I have to questions:
- which one is better an almost perfectly build simple car (like a Tamiya Nissan 350Z w/o engine) or a not so perfect but still well built difficult car (like any AMT mucle car with engine) According to or scorecard the nissan would win
- who would get more points, a perfect but monocolor with some small decals or a not perfect multicolor with difficult decals. In our system the 1st would get more points


I'm still waiting for tips from other countries :)

Layla's Keeper's perspective mirrors mine, (that's a well written and concise overview BTW).
Glitz and wow factor presentations may get the model initial attention, but do not make up for poor workmanship. Quality trumps everything else.
The ugliest vehicle painted an ugly color, but done well, should beat the coolest, most wicked, pretty colored vehicle done poorly. Always.
Using the point system is difficult in my experiences, plus not every judge uses the same criteria, or is consistent. And if you have already awarded a few 10 pointers and come across something even better, how do you reconcile that?
It really is easiest (LOL, the term "easy" regarding judging models...) and fairest to just compare, and by process of elimination, judge the models at any given show against each other with a prescribed set of rules and criteria with three or more judges discussing each category to finalize the results... In my humble opinion... - Mark

<Warning, it's long!>

>> geronimo77
Oh, I see. It's difficult, but in my opinion, a better-built curbside should win over a less impressive complex kit.

The reason is because it's fair to assume that the contestants would build models that match their skill levels. In regard to the quality of the job, it doesn't matter whether a kit has 80 parts or 160 parts, right? (gluing, puttying, filing, smoothing etc. are pretty much the same regardless of the parts count.) And those who pick a more challenging kit should know the fact that they have both the advantage of showing off their skills in many more focuses of attention, and also the disadvantage of having a greater risk of exposing poor skills in many aspects.

If an experienced modeler decides to build a simple kit, the person has a big chance of winning, which may sound unfair. But(!) the less experienced modelers also have a chance of defeating him, because of the relative simplicity, which I think is encouraging to the less experienced modelers.

There are tips and tricks that the contestants can use, and I think those kind of homework should be done by the contestants themselves.

Quality trumps everything else. I wouldn't go that far. I've seen a number of models that have won the national level contests, built by well-known modelers, and those models aren't necessarily chosen just because of the sheer building quality. It's hard to put it, but they tend to have some kind of aura that the other models don't. What I meant by awe factor is this unexplainable "beyond" quality thing. I didn't mean "besides" the quality, just so you know.


Using the point system is difficult in my experiences, plus not every judge uses the same criteria, or is consistent. Yeah, that happens often. One of the possible solutions is to let the most knowledgeable modeler educate the others, and mutually agree on the judging criteria. It's kind of like letting the less experienced judges act like avatars of the most experienced judge.

Also the organizers don't have to try to come up with a perfect criteria, because that's impossible. Contest A in city B might put more focus on paint job, while contest X in city Y might favor engineering. (Do I make sense?)


And if you have already awarded a few 10 pointers and come across something even better, how do you reconcile that?
At the beginning of scoring, quickly look through all models and pick your initial best (this "first pass" is optional). And when you come across better models later, simply give 11 or 12 or whatever the bonus points you think those models deserve. After scoring is done, curve all scores, so that the very best gets the max point. It's a matter of simple relativity, right?


It really is easiest (LOL, the term "easy" regarding judging models...) and fairest to just compare, and by process of elimination, judge the models at any given show against each other with a prescribed set of rules and criteria with three or more judges discussing each category to finalize the results... In my humble opinion... - Mark
I understand that's the most practical method, especially because most contests can't afford hours of time just for judging. But from my experience, this is also the least creditable method, because it's subjective.

For example Mark, suppose you brought a Le Man GT car at a certain contest in the Mid West where majority of models are 50-70s American cars built by "senior" modelers, you'd have a slim chance of getting your model examined. (LOL) You'd think it's unfair, but you'll have to suck it up. (Or laugh it off, depending on your personality.)

No criteria is perfect, but if a contest can span more than a day, I'd recommend a more statistical aapproach, so the contestants don't have to doubt the quality of the judges.

The bottom line is, even though model contest is a type of competition, it still has to be an enjoyable experience, and there shouldn't be any hard feelings between modelers, or against the judges. It's much better to focus on the fact that fellow modelers can have a rare chance of getting together and interact in person than the result itself.

At the Australian Mode Expo the models are judges in 5 categories:

Construction: 30 points
Attention to detail: 25 points
Finish: 25 points
Accuracy to references: 10 points
Realism: 10 points

I haven't been involved in judging before but hope to rectify that soon. :)