I think I've seen almost every item

[Eric Morton]

At a rate of 100 or so votes per day, I haven't seen a new item in several days. At best, once an hour or so, I see an item I haven't seen since before the bottom 25% were culled.

I've currently seen 663 items since the cull, and expect that number to creep up a bit. But the overall number of items I've seen hasn't budged in at least three days. My list of unique item names has 809 entries, though I'm told there are two items with the same name and similar effects, so my list likely accounts for 810 unique items.

Has anyone out there seen more than 810 unique items? Has anyone seen more than 660-or-so items since the cull?

[Feros]

No, my stats line up with yours. I haven't seen a new item in the past week.

[Sissyl]

Guys... You... I have no words that adequately describe your dedication.

[Fern Herold]

I'm impressed. Not that you've seen all of the items, but that you've tracked seeing all of the items. Kudos to you!

[Joel Flank]

I'm just shocked that the number of entries is that low. I'd have thought after each year there'd be significantly more than previous years, and we'd be at about 2000-3000 entries by now.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

I didn't think we'd be at that many, but I thought it would be in the 1,200-1,600 range.

[Nazard]

Sissyl wrote:

Guys... You... I have no words that adequately describe your dedication.

Ah, but have either of them ranked their lists of 810 items from best to worst?

[Feros]

Nazard wrote:

Ah, but have either of them ranked their lists of 810 items from best to worst?

No I haven't. That way insanity lies.

[Eric Morton]

Joel Flank wrote:

I'm just shocked that the number of entries is that low.

Well, statistically speaking, there should be 50-100 items that were culled before I saw them. And disqualifications could account for more, possibly bumping us up to 1,000 or so items at the start of voting.

But I can't imagine there being more than 750 items left in the competition at this point. The numbers I've seen posted by various voters seem to be converging on a population estimate in the high 600's or low 700's.

[Sean McGowan]

I've seen 802 items after about 1200 votes. (That's total items both before and after the cull; I didn't start a second count after.) I'm still seeing between 2-3 new items every voting session (which is usually about 50 or so votes.)
There is, I suppose, a very slight margin for error since occasionally I see an item I think is new and it turns out to be one of the items I saw once back at the start of voting and has hidden from me since; I'm pretty sure I've caught all of those, however.
Once I hit 810 I'll keep an eye out for any new items beyond that.

[Eric Morton]

Sean McGowan wrote:

There is, I suppose, a very slight margin for error since occasionally I see an item I think is new and it turns out to be one of the items I saw once back at the start of voting...

If you're anything like me, that margin of error is going to be much larger than you think. At least once an hour, I get excited because I've finally seen a new item, only to scroll through my alphabetical list of item names and discover that I've already seen and forgotten the "new" item at least once before.

[Inkwell]

Wait, there are two items with exactly the same name? That's very odd.

[Iain Reid]

Eric and Sean (and gbonehead, and anyone else with a list of "all" the items) - are you selecting your own top 32? Then saying how many of those you got right?

I'm not sure if this would be acceptable by the contest, but after voting ends on Tuesday (and the voting page is taken down), you could post the md5 hash of each of your top 32 item names. That would allow people to check their own item against that list (by typing in their own item name to the md5 hash function), but would not disclose publicly any of the item names in your list.

[Sean McGowan]

Eric Morton wrote:

Sean McGowan wrote:

There is, I suppose, a very slight margin for error since occasionally I see an item I think is new and it turns out to be one of the items I saw once back at the start of voting...

If you're anything like me, that margin of error is going to be much larger than you think. At least once an hour, I get excited because I've finally seen a new item, only to scroll through my alphabetical list of item names and discover that I've already seen and forgotten the "new" item at least once before.

Well, yes and no. I'm sure a few more things have slipped through than I realized, but like yourself I do have a system of doublechecking. I don't have an alphabetical list yet, but I do run a 'find' search on item names. So basically, the only duplicate entries should be the ones I might have misspelled.

[Sean McGowan]

Evil Paul wrote:

Eric and Sean (and gbonehead, and anyone else with a list of "all" the items) - are you selecting your own top 32? Then saying how many of those you got right?

I'm not sure if this would be acceptable by the contest, but after voting ends on Tuesday (and the voting page is taken down), you could post the md5 hash of each of your top 32 item names. That would allow people to check their own item against that list (by typing in their own item name to the md5 hash function), but would not disclose publicly any of the item names in your list.

I do have a list of my top 32 picks, (actually top 28 at this stage, with plenty of 'not perfect, but good enough' options to fill out my last 4 slots) and while I am interested in comparing it against other people's favorites, I'm not sure that would be quite the time to do so, even in a anonymous manner like you suggest. I was picturing it as being a conversation that would start up after the top 32 were announced and the rest of us were waiting through the weekend for their archetypes to be revealed.

[Mikko Kallio]

Lists of "personal top 32 picks" were discussed earlier and the main concern seemed to be that if you reveal your top 32 before the voting ends, it might affect how other people vote. Of course, after Tuesday that is no longer a valid concern.

Anyway, the contest rules state that "you may not discuss specific entries on the messageboards during the voting period." The voting period ends on the 15th.

Did I miss the memo or why is it that a lot of people are saying or at least implying that we're not allowed to discuss the items after the 15th? You still shouldn't say anything that might break anonymity, and it's advisable to be careful about what you say about other people's items (and for this reason I'll try to keep my mouth shut about other people's entries during any round of the contest), but there seems to be nothing in the rules that forbids discussion after the 15th.

If the judges have posted clarifications or anything contradicts what I just said, please give us a link.

[Anthony Adam]

I think the biggest issue is if people post their top 32, then entrants may make comment if they see their item being discussed... and if you make Top 32 for real, you aren't supposed to say anything.

So for you own entry safety sake, treat the week before reveal as NDA, don't post anything, don't say anything. That way you can't get yourself disqualified.

It's the only way to be sure.

[Herremann the Wise]

Anthony Adam wrote:

I think the biggest issue is if people post their top 32, then entrants may make comment if they see their item being discussed... and if you make Top 32 for real, you aren't supposed to say anything.

So for you own entry safety sake, treat the week before reveal as NDA, don't post anything, don't say anything. That way you can't get yourself disqualified.

It's the only way to be sure.

I am also looking forward to seeing everyone's top 5/10/32 lists (and most particularly the official one). I'd love to see if my item made any of the lists and I reckon there's about 50 items I have not seen yet based on other threads so there is curiosity for me from several angles for such lists to be legal after public voting finishes.

A thread playing by the following rules would possibly be OK in terms of keeping anonymous I think if they allowed it.

* You type your top 5/10/32 list labeling it [Ordered] or [Unordered]
* No discussion of other people's lists.
* You can only post once to the thread.

However, if such a thread is against the rules [that is the voting period finishes when the Official Top 32 are revealed rather than when public voting finishes], or Paizo don't want us to do such a thread until the reveal, that is cool too. We've waited this long and got to see right behind the curtain and play judge ourselves so either way, I am and have been a happy camper. The whole process this year has been brilliant! :)

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Mikko Kallio]

Anthony Adam wrote:

I think the biggest issue is if people post their top 32, then entrants may make comment if they see their item being discussed... and if you make Top 32 for real, you aren't supposed to say anything.

So for you own entry safety sake, treat the week before reveal as NDA, don't post anything, don't say anything. That way you can't get yourself disqualified.

It's the only way to be sure.

Yes, it's better to be safe than sorry if you don't understand the rules or the risks. I totally understand the importance of not talking about what you're not supposed to be talking about because I work under an NDA all the time. And I've also been in the top 32 so I know the drill. I remember how tempting it would have been to defend my organization last year. But I kept my mouth shut because I knew the rules and the risks.

But the question is: Are people allowed to discuss items after the 15th? (however unwise that may be)

EDIT: @ Herremann: I like what you're suggesting. Just Top 5/10/32 lists, no discussion. And I am too happy either way, whether it's allowed or not. It's just that we people need something to do for the 7 days after the voting closes. :D

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

But the question is: Are people allowed to discuss items after the 15th? (however unwise that may be)

I would say "NO!", for the reason the judges have not selected the top 32 and you wouldn't want to influence them in any way.

[Mikko Kallio]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

But the question is: Are people allowed to discuss items after the 15th? (however unwise that may be)

I would say "NO!", for the reason the judges have not selected the top 32 and you wouldn't want to influence them in any way.

We have already influenced their selection process in a very dramatic way: We voted for the items. You think they care about individual persons' top lists when they have THE list right under their noses? Besides, I'm sure the judges are professional enough to stay out of any top 5/10/32 threads if they suspect our discussions might affect their decisions.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

But the question is: Are people allowed to discuss items after the 15th? (however unwise that may be)

I would say "NO!", for the reason the judges have not selected the top 32 and you wouldn't want to influence them in any way.

We have already influenced their selection process in a very dramatic way: We voted for the items. You think they care about individual persons' top lists when they have THE list right under their noses? Besides, I'm sure the judges are professional enough to stay out of any top 5/10/32 threads if they suspect our discussions might affect their decisions.

I am sure they are, but you wouldn't want the potential for the perception their voting may have been influenced. I am sure they could resist looking at the threads, but how people would perceive the availability of the information could lead to calls of impartiality. Some people will look for any excuse to say why they should have been selected over another.

[Mikko Kallio]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

But the question is: Are people allowed to discuss items after the 15th? (however unwise that may be)

I would say "NO!", for the reason the judges have not selected the top 32 and you wouldn't want to influence them in any way.

We have already influenced their selection process in a very dramatic way: We voted for the items. You think they care about individual persons' top lists when they have THE list right under their noses? Besides, I'm sure the judges are professional enough to stay out of any top 5/10/32 threads if they suspect our discussions might affect their decisions.

I am sure they are, but you wouldn't want the potential for the perception their voting may have been influenced. I am sure they could resist looking at the threads, but how people would perceive the availability of the information could lead to calls of impartiality. Some people will look for any excuse to say why they should have been selected over another.

Hmm, that is a good point, Thomas. Though I think this kind of people will complain anyways, they'll just find another excuse. Anyway, a more anonymous process, such as the one proposed by Evil Paul would avoid this problem because you wouldn't see the items' names even if you opened the thread. (It'd be really far-fetched to claim the judges went through all that trouble to find out which items Bob the Voter liked.)

Well, I guess the judges will let us know what what it's going to be soon enough. I suspect those top xx threads will start popping up very soon after the voting closes...

[Raphael]

I hope this gets sorted. I was really looking forward to the post-mortem.

[Monica Marlowe]

To echo many of the others who caution against posting anything about your own lists prior to the reveal of the official Top 32, I strongly agree, do NOT say anything until the Official Top 32 are announced.

After having watched last year's contest from a unique perspective as the spouse of a Top 32 contender, even I opted not to speak out on specific items because I did not want to inadvertently DQ my husband from the contest.

There was one contestant last year who nearly got DQ'd because he was posting replies about his entry and several people sat him down hard and told him to stfu in just about those words. These are real career opportunities on the line for the Top 4, real money and real life options. If you are serious about being a free lance writer for Paizo or any other company, a confidentiality agreement is part of the package and the gag order rule in the contest for contestants is something the judges look at and take quite seriously.

It would be a shame to see someone disqualify themselves before the race even started. Anyone who has any doubts about that possibility, lay them to rest, you can lose the contest by opening your mouth or loosing your fingers. Don't do it.

[Eric Morton]

Feros wrote:

No, my stats line up with yours. I haven't seen a new item in the past week.

I just want to point out that Feros hit 5,000 votes today. (Huzzah!) If his numbers after 5,000 votes line up with my numbers after 1,000 votes, I'm inclined to believe that our estimate of 700-or-so items still in the running is correct. (I can currently name 664 of those items, though I won't have enough time between now and the close of voting to determine which handful of the 146 other items I've seen is still in the running.)

[Kris G]

Inkwell wrote:

Wait, there are two items with exactly the same name? That's very odd.

Wow I didn't notice that either. Oops.

[Sean McGowan]

So with 1,500 votes cast, I've seen 821 unique items total (not split into pre-and-post cull.) They were still coming in fairly sporadically; 4 in my last 95-vote session alone, so I feel like they would have continued to trickle in for a bit.

For whatever statistical purposes it can be used for, I'll verify that number by creating an alphabetical & numbered list for myself later in the week, thus eliminating any potential duplicates.

[Eric Morton]

Sean McGowan wrote:

So with 1,500 votes cast, I've seen 821 unique items total (not split into pre-and-post cull.)

That just about matches my own experience. I've seen 811 unique items in just under 1,500 votes.

[gbonehead]

I've voted 672 times since they reduced the field, and in viewing those 1344 items, I've seen 593 unique items. That gives me an estimate of about 694 items currently in the pool.

The total number of unique items I've seen is 786 (in 1058 total votes). That means there's 193 items I haven't seen since before the 25% was removed.

Using that estimate of 694, I've seen about 85% of the items left, so I'd guess that of the 193 items I haven't seen, probably about 28 are ones I just haven't seen yet and 165 are ones that I'm unlikely to ever see again :)

Note that I have not been keeping a list of my top 32. I could probably name 4 or 5 off the top of my head but other than that the field is pretty open for me, though there are definitely items I vote against every time I see them.

Until I run across something that makes me grudgingly vote for the item I really didn't intend to ever vote for.

[Feros]

gbonehead wrote:

Until I run across something that makes me grudgingly vote for the item I really didn't intend to ever vote for.

I have run into this particular situation more times than I care to remember...

EDIT: And it just happened AGAIN. BLEAH!

[Khaladon]

Ah! This is what I was looking for, kudos and thanks to all those who kept close track of their voting and the amount of items seen.

Makes me feel better that even though I never came across my own item in a couple/few hundred votes, the chances are still fairly high that it didn't get culled and rather I just didn't happen to come across it.

Man this is gonna be a Loooooong seven days!