Thread: PLANE CHALLENGE 2020 - 2021 - Judges corner

Bob, I think Doug has a serious question and it does affect everyone, so I reckon we should address it here. I'll give it a go:

To be honest, I misread Fletty's scoring system, I took it that all marks were additive, or I would've questioned that myself - my oversight!

Bear in mind that the real "winners" may not be those who get the highest scores - the experience & the boost to confidence for first-timers will be worth far more than any external accolades.

And I can assure you, Doug, having marked many an exam paper in my time that even at the highest academic levels, there are elements that are subjective when it comes to grading any assignment- no perfect scoring system has ever been devised, to my knowledge.

"Complexity" is going to have a degree of subjectivity, that's undeniable - what may be complex to (a) may be a cakewalk for (b), due to previous experience, access to gear, etc. I foresee some heated (but friendly!) discussions between the judges on this one. It may entail all sorts of aspects of the build, from concept to realisation, not simply how many knurled screws or bits of brass are involved. Furthermore, an overly complex design could easily end up having a negative on 'workmanship' and 'result', particularly for a newbie, so a high score for complexity may not be reflected by high marks in those categories. However, I think we should have some regard to the demands of a complex build - I don't think anyone will argue if we rate a skewed infill badger plane a bit higher for complexity than a scratch-stock?

In the end, it's highly likely we won't have too much trouble picking a 'serious' winner, whom nobody will deny deserves the plaudits. Let's hope an equally deserving person goes home with the draw prize, a lot is learnt about plane making, and most of all, a lot of fun is had by all!

I hope that goes someway to allaying your concerns..
Cheers,

The main adjective that Bob put to me at the very beginnings day one, and we have whole heartedly stuck too, and will continue too stick to like crap on a nappy is the doing bit, this is a individual “Challenge” it is NOT a competition, the prize for winning is “creating ” a tool you can use and be proud of, your own personal objectives are what you are aiming for.
Irrelevant of what tools or gear you may have or skills.
Hence why the fun trophy is worth a staggering $3 AU.
People don’t get hung up on this or that,we want to enjoy and learn from your journey.
Just by entering you have won already.

Please stop making me talk grown up it hurts.

Cheers Matt.

Originally Posted by IanW

To be honest, I misread Fletty's scoring system, I took it that all marks were additive, or I would've questioned that myself - my oversight!

Ian, I certainly agree that there should be a reward for complexity, but in proportion.

In this system there are two factors with 1 - 5 points and one with 0 - 5 points but complexity can, working as a multiplier, affect the score for a plane by anywhere from 0 to 60 points. Really, what is the most important thing about a plane? That it does its job? You could make an extremely complex plane to do the same job as a simple plane if you wanted to. You might not win many points for innovation and design but whatever points you do get in the other categories will be multiplied by five, whereas the plane that does just as good a job, if not better, without the bells and whistles only gets its points multiplied by one because it's just a solid body, blade and a wedge.

I can see what was trying to be achieved with this system but I really think it will be driving the results away from where it was intended rather than towards it.

Originally Posted by doug3030

...... but complexity can, working as a multiplier, affect the score for a plane by anywhere from 0 to 60 points....

Um, that's highly unlikely, Doug. The minimum score for complexity is 1, so your minimum multiplier on that side can't produce a zero product. You would have to have zero for all of the other categories to end up with a zero. That person isn't in with a very good chance of taking the laurels, are they?!

Originally Posted by doug3030

...... I can see what was trying to be achieved with this system but I really think it will be driving the results away from where it was intended rather than towards it......

Well, since you've stirred the pot, I guess we need to consider your concerns at the next judges & organisers meeting. I'll get back to you all on this point...

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Well, since you've stirred the pot, I guess we need to consider your concerns at the next judges & organisers meeting. I'll get back to you all on this point...

Thanks Ian, I appreciate that you have heard and are considering my concerns instead of dismissing them out of hand.

Originally Posted by IanW

Um, that's highly unlikely, Doug. The minimum score for complexity is 1, so your minimum multiplier on that side can't produce a zero product. You would have to have zero for all of the other categories to end up with a zero. That person isn't in with a very good chance of taking the laurels, are they?!

Just to be clear on that Ian, the point I was making was how many points the multiplier can affect an individual score; I was not saying that the multiplier could cause a particular plane to score zero.

Any plane with a complexity of 1 means the other three figures are multiplied by 1 therefore 1 x (5 +5 + 5) = 15, same as 5 + 5 + 5 = 15,
therefore zero affect from the multiplier.
Compare that to a plane complexity of 5 where 5 x (5 +5 + 5) = 75, which is 60 more than 5 + 5 + 5 = 15.

Hence the single attribute of complexity can mean anywhere from zero to 60 points on a given entry. Is complexity really up to 12 times more important than any of the other criteria? I mean, seriously, complexity is not always a desirable attribute in any case.

I feel obliged to comment, although in doing this I hope I am not perpetuating the very thing the panel of judges wish to prevent and I am a culprit in this regard. So I apologise for my part in initially directing this thread down a less than serious path. Clearly the intent is to state the objectives and provide a vehicle for questions about planes. That is admirable.

However I see this as a limited invitation to discuss. The "Challenge" is purely on the making of a hand plane and we should be wary of questioning the people giving up their time to what in many ways will be an equally rewarding quest for them too. I would hate to think that I was responsible for it becoming a thankless task like so many volunteer positions:

I respect the wish that this particular thread is kept for sensible discussion (but not including re-writing rules). My philosophy on the Challenge is that I am privileged, as a member of the Forum, to be invited to participate. I do not expect to build the best plane, it is not important that for me to have superior skills to anybody else, because I don't, and nor is it important that I come out the other end with a prize. It is, however, important that I am part of a like-minded group of people and I am reveling in seeing other participants' development including their own trials and tribulations. This aspect makes the Challenge differ from conventional competitions and I have consequently deliberately avoided using the word "competition." I don't see it as that. Perhaps it is where I have arrived in life. Think full circle and an adult version of "Show and tell."

I would also add that it is more likely that we will attract additional participants if the Challenge is seen as one for ourselves more than the other people in the class. Enough from me. I hope you get the drift.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I feel obliged to comment, although in doing this I hope I am not perpetuating the very thing the panel of judges wish to prevent and I am a culprit in this regard. So I apologise for my part in initially directing this thread down a less than serious path. Clearly the intent is to state the objectives and provide a vehicle for questions about planes. That is admirable.

However I see this as a limited invitation to discuss. The "Challenge" is purely on the making of a hand plane and we should be wary of questioning the people giving up their time to what in many ways will be an equally rewarding quest for them too. I would hate to think that I was responsible for it becoming a thankless task like so many volunteer positions:

I respect the wish that this particular thread is kept for sensible discussion (but not including re-writing rules). My philosophy on the Challenge is that I am privileged, as a member of the Forum, to be invited to participate. I do not expect to build the best plane, it is not important that to superior skills to anybody else, because I don't, and nor is it important that I come out the other end with a prize. It is, however, important that I am part of a like-minded group of people and I am reveling in seeing other participants' development including their own trials and tribulations. This aspect makes the Challenge differ from conventional competitions and I have consequently deliberately avoided using the word "competition." I don't see it as that. Perhaps it is where I have arrived in life. Think full circle and an adult version of "Show and tell."

I would also add that it is more likely that we will attract additional participants if the Challenge is seen as one for ourselves more than the other people in the class. Enough from me. I hope you get the drift.

Regards
Paul

I couldn't have said it as well but I totally agree and let's get on with building whatever we have in mind. The best part is learning from others of similar mind and just getting to show it off in the end. I'm loving this.

Would the esteemed judges of the 2020-21 Woodworking Plane Challenge entertain the idea of a Popcorn Prize bestowed on the plane voted Best by the army of non-participating forumites who have pulled up a chair and ordered refreshments to watch the enthralling contest?

A worthy foil to the Archibald's Packers Prize I would say!

Cheers Yvan

Originally Posted by yvan

Would the esteemed judges of the 2020-21 Woodworking Plane Challenge entertain the idea of a Popcorn Prize bestowed on the plane voted Best by the army of non-participating forumites who have pulled up a chair and ordered refreshments to watch the enthralling contest?

A worthy foil to the Archibald's Packers Prize I would say!...

Indeed yvan, that possibility has already been discussed, and we will quite likely set up a poll when the time comes....
Cheers,

This may inspire some of the people here, who are doing wood bodied planes.
A group I follow on some other site, that I won’t mention.


Tool as Art - Art as tool

Cheers Matt.

I keep checking this section to see if somebody else has entered the challenge.

At the time of posting there are eighteen participants. One of the benefits of the challenge is that everybody comes out of this with with something: A plane of course! One that you can use.



So I am expecting more Forumites to put up their hand.



Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by doug3030

Thanks Ian, I appreciate that you have heard and are considering my concerns instead of dismissing them out of hand.



Just to be clear on that Ian, the point I was making was how many points the multiplier can affect an individual score; I was not saying that the multiplier could cause a particular plane to score zero.

Any plane with a complexity of 1 means the other three figures are multiplied by 1 therefore 1 x (5 +5 + 5) = 15, same as 5 + 5 + 5 = 15,
therefore zero affect from the multiplier.
Compare that to a plane complexity of 5 where 5 x (5 +5 + 5) = 75, which is 60 more than 5 + 5 + 5 = 15.

Hence the single attribute of complexity can mean anywhere from zero to 60 points on a given entry. Is complexity really up to 12 times more important than any of the other criteria? I mean, seriously, complexity is not always a desirable attribute in any case.

Doug, we agreed to use this formula: cn=v=fλn c n = v = f λ n

I trust that explains it well enough.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Doug, we agreed to use this formula: cn=v=fλn c n = v = f λ n

I trust that explains it well enough.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks for clarifying that Derek.

But surely you would need to use a logarithmic scale for n rather than a linear one.

Ian had attempted to simplify the formula to be used to judge our challenge (post #1), but only served to confuse us as he presented the complex formula as a simple integer primary school equation.. wrong Ian .. we are much smarter than that- some of us even went to secondary school and can understand more complete explanations. Derek defined the judges agreed formula in much more detail as cn=v=fλn c n = v = f λ n

I have carried out extensive research and analysis of this equation over the past 1/2 hour or so and can say categorically that the equation has nothing whatsoever to do with arithmetic, algebra, calculus , trigonometry or even quantum mechanics - NO, the answer is in Derek's impressive qualifications in clinical psychology. As one uneducated in these matters to others similarly unqualified, my research revealed that the formula is used to define the effects of the brainwaves emitted in different areas of the brain when subjected to stimuli from the optical nerve, cones and rods and how the brain interprets these stimuli to define likes and dislikes (f in the formula) and to rate these in a manner that we, who are unfamiliar with intricacies of such matters, equate as good, better and best (n in the formula).

Doug3030 was almost there when he suggested a logarithmic scale, but my research suggests the the application of calculus, derivations and correlations are probably a better fit , although as I said in the preceding paragraph cn=v=fλn c n = v = f λ n is not purely a mathematical formula as we, woodworkers, would envisage. My research this morning failed to find any formula which would define the level of achievement and satisfaction I expect to experience when I complete the challenge. Whether someone judges it as 99/100 or 9/100 is largely irrelevant if I can hold my head high and say I made it, it works like I thought it would, I did the best I could and I am proud of my achievement.

I trust we all get to experience that feeling.

Cheers
Bob