Challenge of Challenges 2010
Wow, that's an incredibly dramatic difference. Well spotted.
I'd suggest writing to the challenge host. Maybe a similar challenge for only winners in the latter part of the year (ie, after the period when cheating was no longer allowed . . . well, minimized at least)?
I sent a message to scarta, but haven't received a response. I'll send it to a few of the hosts too.
To me, the real injustice is to the winners of the larger challenges. They are effectively cut out because of receiving relatively fewer votes. There were only six winners included that won challenges with over 200 entries and 26 that won challenges with 50 or fewer entries. There were 10 included that were winners of challenges with 20 or fewer entries.
I just don't get the "most votes" criteria. It seems to me that the winners with the higher scores would be a better way to cut it. Furthermore, the 2009 Challenge of Challenges had about 300 entries. Why did they cut this one off at 100?
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!