In the leaderboard, Award Force displays the average score across all judges for each entry rather than the total of all judges’ scores. This is intentional and designed to provide fair, consistent, and reliable judging results.
When a panel of judges reviews a group of entries, several situations can occur:
- A judge may abstain from scoring an entry due to a conflict of interest
- A judge may be recused from evaluating a particular entry
- A judge may run out of time and not finish all assigned entries
- A judge may overlook a score and leave an entry incomplete
If totals were used, entries scored by fewer judges would be penalised simply because they received fewer recorded scores. This introduces bias and undermines fairness.
Using averages ensures all entries are judged on equal terms. For example:
- Entry A is scored by 9 judges
- Entry B is scored by 10 judges
When comparing averages, both entries can be evaluated fairly. If totals were compared, Entry A would appear 10% weaker than Entry B purely because fewer judges scored it.
Award Force uses averages to ensure that the leaderboard remains accurate, fair, and resilient to unavoidable changes in judging activity.
Good to know
- Averages prevent entries from being advantaged or disadvantaged due to varying numbers of completed scores.
- Averaging increases result integrity when abstentions, recusals, or incomplete scoring occur.
- Score calculation options include sum and mean, and the differences are explained in What is the difference between 'Sum' and 'Mean' result calculation?