I join the chorus in saying that from where I sat, Kelly's editing job looked pretty damn good to me. I will say there was some level of quirky formatting stuff and some typos. Kelly did send the packets out nearly a week in advance, and truthfully I didn't even really look at them beyond a cursory glance as I got them ready for printing. I had every faith in the editor, and I doubt I would have caught most potential errors anyway. If the worst of it is typos and goofy ways of indicating the correct answer, then you've done a truly, truly excellent job. I did have a moderator remark to me that the bonuses "were in perfect waltz time-- one, two, kick in the balls." I'll have to play with it later on, but I recall bonus conversion for the top half of the field or so being in the neighborhood of 20PPB. I guess I wonder what the ideal target for conversion is. To me, 20ish is a good level at which we begin to separate the good from the exceptional. Again, the numbers will tell (once I've crunched them), but I think the difficulty was pretty good. As for the number of packets thing, well, obviously you work with what there is, and if there were only 15 usable packets, so be it. I take responsibility for the finals issue. Maybe some one of these days I'll get a field size that doesn't put me in that position. My two cents from underneath a pile of scoresheets, Allison
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST