Tag archive
Most rubrics list innovation, execution, impact and presentation with no guidance on relative weight. A concrete weighting scheme and the reasoning be
Scoring on charisma, comparing teams instead of scoring against the rubric, and other first-time-judge mistakes — and the simple fixes for each.
Organisers rarely remember a judge's exact scores. What they do remember — punctuality, written feedback quality, calm under a tight schedule — decide
A short calibration meeting before judging starts prevents most scoring inconsistency. What that fifteen minutes should actually contain.
A demo over a video call fails differently than one in a room. What a judge needs to adjust for a remote hackathon, and what stays exactly the same.
Organisers don't search a directory for judges — they ask people they already trust. What builds that trust before the first invitation ever arrives.
A single judge's taste becomes the whole competition's outcome. A panel with a shared rubric and a calibration round fixes that — here's how the two f