Aww, c’mon, they just wanted to get to the game quicker … yeah, that’s it. (Seriously, I’ve been guilty of missing important introductory details.)
Back to the spreadsheet … is it worthwhile to sort the reviewers in alphabetical order? I’ve wanted to look a few reviewers up, and it was a bit hunt-and-peck.
While I can’t think of any downside, others might. Also, if we do, should we separate them into authors’ forum and non-authors’ forum?
Some very trivial cleanup:
BTW, it’s been neat to track the daily bumps in reviews written. It feels very natural to have had a small lull in the middle, and it looks like we’ve had a bump up recently. It really is a marathon and I think all the authors appreciate everyone’s endurance.
I know I’ve certainly had ebbs and flows with my own reviewing efforts.
I’ve written her as I saw the question mark. She told me that she played it but she hasn’t done a review.
Good catch! I just tried putting both urls in the same cell, but they aren’t clickable if you do. If somebody knows a practical way to keep both links we can do that otherwise I guess we should only keep one. My instinct is to prefer the reviewer’s website but the same issue might pop up again when people add IFDB reviews to the spreadsheet if the name isn’t the same. Perhaps we should keep the links to the reviewer’s website but use his IFDB name as the column header?
I’d assume the question mark is just a mistake, I removed it.
Well, something strange happened to the spreadsheet.
Looks like an empty row was added in the middle, which broke the formatting and stats. (It had the text “median” in it and nothing else, about halfway though the table.)
I’ve done my best to put things back in working order, though if there’s legitimately supposed to be a median row at the bottom perhaps some kind volunteer will restore it…
Somebody tried to sort by number of reviews but also sorted the footer rows which screwed things up. I reverted it and I don’t think any reviews were lost (the version I reverted to had more reviews than the wonky one which is odd). 
Edit:
I created a filter view to see the sheet sorted by # reviews:
You can also get the view in the Filter View submenu of the Data menu.
It was funny earlier tonight too, and fixed then too. A review I had added during that earlier funny period was lost with the fix after then (at around 6pm UK time), and I only noticed it because my own personal review total was 1 out when I added my 2nd review of this evening. If anyone else added a review around that time it’s probably worth checking your review total is correct.
I saw the changes, and I noticed the sums were D3:D73 and not D2:D73. So that’s where the discrepancy is – no worries about data corruption.
So, yeah, I’m pretty sure nothing got lost, but if we want to be really rigorous, we could just cut and paste the text into a blank spreadsheet and the two columns. It happened during relative downtime, so I think Viv’s reviews were the only ones (temporarily) lost.
The final totals as of the ballot box closing are 785 overall, 551 public. The median was 11/8. That’s 11 reviews per game, almost 8 public.
As an inveterate numbers gazer, I was slightly bummed we didn’t get to a median of 12–someone reviewing one more game with 11 would push it over! But midway through I thought we would get 710 (10 per game) which would be pretty good. I expect/hope reviews will trickle in.
I recently added yobel_labs’s tweet-reviews, because she mentioned she wanted to look at fellow entrants’ games “today and tomorrow” on 11/14 & they popped up just over an hour after voting closed. I don’t know how people feel about adding review links after the ballot box is closed, but I labeled the latest version before adding hers as “ballot box closed.”
Thanks to all who helped build the spreadsheet, whether through creating (hooray @nilsf) or editing it or adding features, or writing reviews that gave us reason to edit it! It was one of many good motivating factors to help me get through the other entries.
We have a higher average number of reviews per game, both public and total, than any of the years from 2018 to 2020! Sure, there are fewer games this year, but 2021’s total review count (790) is almost the same as 2019’s (792), when there were 82 games.
I was to write yesterday some impressions but I run out of time.
I can appreciate that developers write a few reviews since thers should be near 70 of them and there are only 551 reviews. Since you have to vote a minimun of 5 games to get your votes valid, 7 teviews by author is a small number.
The rate total reviews/games number are the same for past years. I have been tracking down last year spreadsheet and ther are minimal differences. Ther are a black point this year: there are several games with a very reduced number of reviews. Additionally there have been more people reviewing this year with a smaller numbers of reviews per capita… Perhaps couse this year haven’t been a prize for the bigger reviewer ; - )
I wan’t to thank and congrat to all that people that has contributed with their comments, maps and reviews.
Let’s see wich is the final result…
I wanted to review more games but got severely hampered by an unexpected new job in the latter half of the judging period. I wonder how many more people found themselves in a similar situation thanks to many countries having gradually-improving economies at the moment?
I have got a new job at the very beggining of the comp. So I managed to play review and vote a bunch of games so afterwards I do a few ones.