I think the club style contest is the best learning experience you get. Every meeting you bring forward your best work and the judge may say “I like that one” and then in detail tells you how to improve it seemingly ripping it to shreds. That rock is too bright and draws the eye away from… or darken the sky a bit this is not a picture of the sky… or tighten the crop a bit that will … . If you came to have your ego puffed you will be disappointed and angry. But if you came to learn you will see the judge has pushed you away from good toward great. You might appreciate that mean judge.

Have no great disagreement with the overall tone or contents of your comments. I would only point out out that I was never informed of the gamelike rules before I said Yes to a request from a coworker. It was as simple as the college photo instructor asks the college photographer for a favor, a seemingly very suitable favor. The page of rules I recieved on arriving offended me. I could not accommodate it.

FWIW I was on a three judge panel, so its not as if I could completely upset the applecart. I could, at most, be somewhat disruptive of status quo that encourages producing mind numbingly boring photos.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I could have politely informed them, on seeing the rules, that they were having a two judge panel without me. Instead I harbored hope that there would be some (many?) stimulating photos in the mix to which I could assign high scores despite ignoring the rules.

I lost that gamble. There was a parade of boring cliches that for the most part ticked many of the boxes to earn good scores. But, I cannot reward mediocrity even faced with a system engineered to do so, so I departed from the system.

Cliches have a useful purpose as compact easily digested messages. I cranked out cliches to deliver the colleges messages "Great Athletic Program", "Up to date technology", "Diverse community" come to our campus for all that. Unfortunately Photo Society generated cliches had no message or purpose other than to tick boxes on the scoring sheet. As you say, its a game (I dont watch game shows).

Thanks for letting me bend your ear !

I completely agree. I have been a member of my local photographic society for 37 years and have enjoyed all the monthly competitions, whether I have entered or not. They are firstly a great source of learning and secondly some light hearted competition between friends. As far as judges are concerned some, of course, are better than others. Ones I particularly admire are those who will say words to the effect "this is not a subject which I personally enjoy but it is a very good and worthy example so I will give it an award". For 7 years I was Competition Secretary so it fell on me to book good judges. There was only one in all that time that I marked in my records never to invite back.

This is not meant to be a criticism of human judges. But judging photo contests, or any event, different judges will award more or less for different criteria. We see this in judged athletic events where there can be a considerable spread of points from multiple judges.

Sometimes I look at photo contest results and I like one of the runner ups better than the winners. Of course I’m not an expert judge and I’m not privy to the criteria the judges used, but I know what I like and I can see inconsistency if it exists.

It is only natural for human preferences and biases and even politics, to creep in when humans are judging contests.

Computers as we know are devoid of emotion, and when given proper programming they are very good at quantifying large amounts of data and comparing it objectively to criteria.

My question:
How long will it be before AI replaces or at least supplements humans In judging photo contests?

This is not meant to be a criticism of human judges. But judging photo contests, or any event, different judges will award more or less for different criteria. We see this in judged athletic events where there can be a considerable spread of points from multiple judges.

Sometimes I look at photo contest results and I like one of the runner ups better than the winners. Of course I’m not an expert judge and I’m not privy to the criteria the judges used, but I know what I like and I can see inconsistency if it exists.

It is only natural for human preferences and biases and even politics, to creep in when humans are judging contests.

Computers as we know are devoid of emotion, and when given proper programming they are very good at quantifying large amounts of data and comparing it objectively to criteria.

My question:
How long will it be before AI replaces or at least supplements humans In judging photo contests?