E'97 results

Mon 01-Sep-97 10:03, Alex Mikhailov (2:5030/529.25) wrote a letter to Peter
Sobolev:

PS>> Any “results” that have already been published or
PS>> will be published in the future cannot be related to ENLiGHT'97
PS>> regardless from their reliability.

AM> but! right in front of the entrance, profiles of spektrumists
AM> were collected and now they are with Vova Larkov,

Is this anything other than a dream? I didn’t have them and don’t have them.

AM> IMHO, the results that will be calculated on the basis
AM> of these questionnaires are the reliable official results of the subject.
AM> Isn’t that so, in theory?

Completely not so. For many reasons.

With best wishes, Vladimir.

AM>> and already now they are at Vova Larkov, who

RK> Which were filled on the second day.

why is that??? :( )
the compo was on the first day, and, IMHO, almost everyone
filled out the forms immediately after the compo.

RK> The reasoning was approximately
RK> like this: I have 10 written here, and then 20 - well, probably 10 is
RK> right! Or maybe 20 rules? Well, never mind, I’ll write 20....

I gave marks for graphics on the first day
and demos on the second, but I already remembered which demo I was giving points for and why exactly for it.
at the last Enlight it was the same thing, so
should last year’s results also be considered incorrect?

RK> In addition, they collected (!sort of!) about a quarter of the questionnaires?

about 160 pieces. I don’t know how much this is as a percentage,
but, IMHO, it’s quite enough: whoever wanted to, passed.

AM> why is this??? :( )
AM> the compo was on the first day, and, IMHO, almost everyone
AM> filled out the forms immediately after the compo.

How do I know why? We arrived on the second day at 12 o'clock and having learned that he would not be there, we began to fill out the form. And then a crowd of different
people were rushing around, trying to fill out and hand in the forms.

AM> I gave marks for the graphics on the first day,
AM> and the demos on the second, but I already remembered
AM> which demo I was giving points for and why exactly for it.

I agree about the demos, although the results posted on day 2 seemed a little to me
strange, if you compare them with the reaction of the audience on the first day.
I personally thought the Progress demo was better, more demosh
or something... and the first impression of it was very strong.
As for the graphics - we looked at the first 30 works - almost everyone had already filled out the form. That is, I saw a picture - I immediately put a number in the form, and behind it
an even better picture - oh well, she got 2nd place - and as a rule, by the 40th picture -
the form is filled out - you can go smoke.

AM> at the last Enlight it was the same, so
AM> should last year’s results also be considered incorrect?

I don’t know, I haven’t seen it.

AM> about 160 pieces. I don’t know how much it is as a percentage,
AM> but, IMHO, it’s quite enough: whoever wanted to, passed.

Well, where are these results:deme - number of votes, picture - number
of votes, etc.

AM> was it nonsense that year too? What does it matter to the Sinclairists
AM> that there was no second day? after all, it was the first one,

There was a zoo, and not the first day, and you can only evaluate the demo component.
Although, due to a glitchy computer, perhaps we didn’t see everything. And the questionnaires needed to be collected on the first day, since it was known that there would be no second day.