APSE judging question

[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 heck 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.