Who is collecting items?

[Tripp Elliott]

The last couple years, industrious souls have stepped up and created a Google doc, or some such to keep track of all items that have shown up during the voting.

I'm not smart enough to do it, so I'm hoping the usual suspects are planning this.

[The Golux]

me too. I'd like to see as many as possible, and I believe that ones that don't make the top 32 aren't stored anywhere visible normally.

[Eric Morton]

Each entry becomes property of Paizo, so no one outside of Paizo can legally post a document containing the full text of every entry.

That being said, last year, the Paizo staff gave the go-ahead for voters to post lists of item names and word counts (with no other description or commentary attached).

[Thomas LeBlanc]

I thought this would be about grabbing items we really like? I collect 20-ish every year. Sadly, about half of the ones I grab don't make the 32.

[Mikko Kallio]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I thought this would be about grabbing items we really like? I collect 20-ish every year. Sadly, about half of the ones I grab don't make the 32.

I also thought this would be about making a personal Top something list. Actually, I've been planning a mini-contest to motivate people to vote more (and more responsibly), which involves compiling a list of your 20 favorite items. Each item that makes the top 32 is worth 5% (20 x 5% = 100%), alternates are worth 4%, and top 100 items (if that category exists this year) are worth 2% each. The percentage is your mojo rating. The name of the contest? Detect mojo. :-D

[Anthony Adam]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I thought this would be about grabbing items we really like? I collect 20-ish every year. Sadly, about half of the ones I grab don't make the 32.

I also thought this would be about making a personal Top something list. Actually, I've been planning a mini-contest to motivate people to vote more (and more responsibly), which involves compiling a list of your 20 favorite items. Each item that makes the top 32 is worth 5% (20 x 5% = 100%), alternates are worth 4%, and top 100 items (if that category exists this year) are worth 2% each. The percentage is your mojo rating. The name of the contest? Detect mojo. :-D

Cool idea, but I would not require a score, the random factor on my votes would have perverted the results - I saw only 3 of the Top 32 during the voting stage last year even though I achieved marathon voter.

[Tripp Elliott]

Sorry this wasn't what you expected.

[Mikko Kallio]

Anthony Adam wrote:

Cool idea, but I would not require a score, the random factor on my votes would have perverted the results - I saw only 3 of the Top 32 during the voting stage last year even though I achieved marathon voter.

That's odd, and unfortunate. I didn't see all the Top 32 items either, but only three? That's some seriously bad luck, or a weird glitch. :(

For it to be a contest, though, it does need a scoring system. How else do I know whom to interview on ASFH? :-P

[Andrew Marlowe]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

For it to be a contest, though, it does need a scoring system. How else do I know whom to interview on ASFH? :-P

Each contestant playing would have a list you could score against a percentage based on the number of winners seen...or you could just score it as you planed and make luck a factor.

[frank gori]

I will keep my own records but I have my finger firmly on my nose when it comes to setting up the "didya see my item" doc.

Especially since (unless I make the top 32) I'll run my omnibus thread of reviewing every item people ask for feedback on.

[Anthony Adam]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Anthony Adam wrote:

Cool idea, but I would not require a score, the random factor on my votes would have perverted the results - I saw only 3 of the Top 32 during the voting stage last year even though I achieved marathon voter.

That's odd, and unfortunate. I didn't see all the Top 32 items either, but only three? That's some seriously bad luck, or a weird glitch. :(

For it to be a contest, though, it does need a scoring system. How else do I know whom to interview on ASFH? :-P

I can think of 32 potential candidates, plus 3 or 4 maybe alternatives :P

[Mikko Kallio]

Anthony Adam wrote:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Anthony Adam wrote:

Cool idea, but I would not require a score, the random factor on my votes would have perverted the results - I saw only 3 of the Top 32 during the voting stage last year even though I achieved marathon voter.

That's odd, and unfortunate. I didn't see all the Top 32 items either, but only three? That's some seriously bad luck, or a weird glitch. :(

For it to be a contest, though, it does need a scoring system. How else do I know whom to interview on ASFH? :-P

I can think of 32 potential candidates, plus 3 or 4 maybe alternatives :P

Heh yeah, I would... but Know Direction will be interviewing the Top 16 this year too, so it wouldn't make sense for me to interview the same people.

[Monica Marlowe]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I thought this would be about grabbing items we really like? I collect 20-ish every year. Sadly, about half of the ones I grab don't make the 32.

I also thought this would be about making a personal Top something list. Actually, I've been planning a mini-contest to motivate people to vote more (and more responsibly), which involves compiling a list of your 20 favorite items. Each item that makes the top 32 is worth 5% (20 x 5% = 100%), alternates are worth 4%, and top 100 items (if that category exists this year) are worth 2% each. The percentage is your mojo rating. The name of the contest? Detect mojo. :-D

Having cast a vote or two these last two years, I'm firmly in the camp that never saw most of the Top 32 finalists and alternates, so I would definitely lose your game Mikko. Plus I'm not much for record keeping while I vote, I knit and vote to keep my hands busy ;-)

Fortunately most of my favorites do end up in the top list that Paizo shared last year. I hope they will do so again.

[Clay Clouser]

I could have sworn there was a pdf of the full items last year, yes paizo owns everything submitted but that just means you cant sell it. Someone bug Owen for an official ruling on this.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

I believe a couple people -- Garrett? Sean? I thought Eric -- listed the names of each item they saw.

Maybe they just tracked the number of votes. I know they had some math formula that I didn't understand to try to figure out how many entries there were (fascinating each year, just way beyond my comprehension).

[Sean McGowan]

Scarletrose was the one with the big list of items last year, aided by the community at large. (This was specifically done with SKR's blessings, as well.) That was 'only' (hah!) a post-cull list, though. Eric definitely ran a list the year before that. I don't think I've ever seen a PDF with all the entries in full on it, though I know a lot of us more obsessive types do compare notes in PMs and ask if anyone has the text for any items we've seen the names of on those lists but never actually saw during voting.

[Tripp Elliott]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Heh yeah, I would... but Know Direction will be interviewing the Top 16 this year too, so it wouldn't make sense for me to interview the same people.

I was bummed that I couldn't fit into their schedule last year.

[Treyson]

Personally, I used the snipping tool to save each item I saw last year. I have a nice folder of wondrous items from the 2014 contest that I study through every now and then. It's great material, for both dos and dont's.

[Mikko Kallio]

Andrew Marlowe wrote:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

For it to be a contest, though, it does need a scoring system. How else do I know whom to interview on ASFH? :-P

Each contestant playing would have a list you could score against a percentage based on the number of winners seen...or you could just score it as you planed and make luck a factor.

While I do think it's a good idea to decrease the luck factor, what you propose would mean that people would have to record the names of all the items they see, correct? Not ideal for people who, for example, knit while voting.

Besides, luck will always be a factor anyway. If your score is proportional to how many top 32 items you see, a person who only sees one top 32 item during voting will quite arbitrarily have a very good or very bad score depending on whether he's lucky/mojo-sensitive enough to put that one item on the list. It would require a quite complex mathematical algorithm to make if it 100% fair. Again, I prefer the relatively straightforward scoring system I proposed.

[Anthony Adam]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Anthony Adam wrote:

Cool idea, but I would not require a score, the random factor on my votes would have perverted the results - I saw only 3 of the Top 32 during the voting stage last year even though I achieved marathon voter.

That's odd, and unfortunate. I didn't see all the Top 32 items either, but only three? That's some seriously bad luck, or a weird glitch. :(

For it to be a contest, though, it does need a scoring system. How else do I know whom to interview on ASFH? :-P

I actually thought it more good luck - the Top 32 was a surprise and I couldn't curse them on their way there! :P

[Ignotus Advenium]

I got a marathon tag last year, and believe I saw every single item except for a very small handful.

[Garrett Guillotte]

Scarletrose ran the post-cull GDoc during voting. I kept a copy of every item I saw but did not (and as Eric mentioned, could not) distribute them, though I did provide some "color commentary" based on stats on the collected items, like word frequency, count, CL, slot, etc.

I put up a GDoc tracking items and reviews on the critique threads after Round 1 closed.

[Papasteve08]

Your contest looks fun Mikko. I was planning on keeping a list anyways... I am also hopelessly competitive, so count me in.

Hey, are you all seeing who can kick that rock the farthest? I'm in!

[Curaigh]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Besides, luck will always be a factor anyway. If your score is proportional to how many top 32 items you see, a person who only sees one top 32 item during voting will quite arbitrarily have a very good or very bad score depending on whether he's lucky/mojo-sensitive enough to put that one item on the list. It would require a quite complex mathematical algorithm to make if it 100% fair. Again, I prefer the relatively straightforward scoring system I proposed.

Keep your score system but run gold silver, bronze in Champion-weight, Dedicated-weight, Star-weight categories. Not that you need to interview them all. Though it would be fun to listen the champion voters discuss what they saw for an hour or so. (PaizoCon seminar?)

I will have a 'keep' and draw my favorites for that. I don't keep the text. My favorites are often just the kernel of an item not done well, or are suitable for one my current characters or players. This year I may also keep a list of a category [x], to see how I others addressed issues I struggled with.

I am curious (but doubt I will track) the percentages of different categories with this year's twist.

[James Raine]

I'm keeping a list of my favorites, but definitely not keeping a complete list.

[cwslyclgh]

I am sure I'll keep a file with some of my favorite for use in my home games... but I am not planning on keeping a detailed spreadsheet like I did the first year of public voting, or even a list of unique items seen like I tried to keep up last year.

[Mlemke]

Is there a link to those google docs?

[Donald Robinson]

Depending on my work schedule, I'll be keeping a list of the votes I make and unique items. Not sure how big of a "keep for personal" use file I'll create.

EDIT: Also, for those really, really anxious, I'd be willing to let people know if I have seen their item (both pre- and post-culling). Just PM me. I will definitely try to hit marathon again, and maybe scale up to champion (though with a lab audit during that last week of the voting, marathon will be hard enough to achieve).

[Mikko Kallio]

Curaigh wrote:

Keep your score system but run gold silver, bronze in Champion-weight, Dedicated-weight, Star-weight categories. Not that you need to interview them all. Though it would be fun to listen the champion voters discuss what they saw for an hour or so. (PaizoCon seminar?)

The weight classes are a brilliant idea! I'm going to PaizoCon, so organizing something there is doable, I'll give it some thought.

[Kiel Howell]

What about us multiple marathon weights?

[Curaigh]

You only get to compete after 26 miles.
sorry I couldn't remember what was between the two. I am even more sorry for not thinking to scroll the screen up when I knew I was missing one of them :)

[Garrett Guillotte]

TGG wrote:

Is there a link to those google docs?

2014 Critique My Item thread tracker (thread)

Scarletrose's 2014 post-cull spreadsheet (thread)

2013 Critique My Item thread tracker

[James Risner]

I've got a perl script I use to collect complete items, sort them automatically, and produce lists.

So if we make a thread and get the ok again this year, I can help track the name and word count of each item, the last time it was witnessed etc.

[Kiel Howell]

James, the fact that you can stand program in emoticons garners respect from me...although I can't say I'm better...still using COBOL.

[Anthony Adam]

COBOL - those were the days - programming in English Sentences. I miss those days.

[James Risner]

Are we good to release names and word count?
I'm all ready to rock and release!

[cwslyclgh]

well I guess I am setting up and keeping a spread sheet this year as well... I hadn't panned on it, but found myself setting up the spread sheet a half hour ago.

[James Risner]

woot

[James Risner]

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

I don't know that we release exactly how many entries we get. "Hundreds" is certainly a safe reply, given how amazingly broad a range it covers. "More than I expected, under the circumstances" is also accurate.

The judges won't be sharing our privileged knowledge about the exact number of entries or what percentages each type of item got. However, I have no issue with fans compiling lists during the voting process and using them to form educated approximations, as they have in years past.

Sounds like lists got the A-OK this year.