Before diving in in 2022, I gave a lot of thought to how I wanted to judge. Somewhat intimidated by both the outsider-barging-in vibe I was bringing and the sternly worded “use all numbers” guidance, I’ve been pretty open with my approach. What I DIDN’T (couldn’t, given my lack of community context) account for was how the scores would read and impact authors.
Since I reused it, you can probably tell I think I lit on a way that works for me right out of the gate. (Which is always a worrying statement, right? “Nailed it, first try! No need to internalize or adjust anything, I win!”) Certainly the fudgy ‘bonus/penalty point’ is crucial flexibility to accommodate singular works. I am hopeful that the words I throw out in support of the score compensate and explain, at least a bit, the scores on the lower end.
It is not lost on me that the whole judging thing is a fraught endeavor - real humans poured months, years of creativity, skill and passion into these things and after two hours (at most!) I reduce all that effort to a single digit number. On some level ANYTHING less than a 10 dishonors the effort. For me, if you’re going to presume do that at all, it makes sense to commit to it with real differentiation to give Big Numbers the best chance to buff down the burrs of idiosyncrasy. While being as open and supportive as you can.