Vizualizare sursă pentru „Guidance for judges and evaluators”

{{#seo:|title=Guidance for judges and evaluators — Însemn|description=Proposed judging process, weighted criteria and worked scoring examples for evaluators.|keywords=Însemn, INSEMN, local identity, emblem competition, cultural heritage, organising the competition|locale=en_GB|site_name=Însemn}}
{{Însemn navigare|lang=en|ro=Instrucțiuni pentru evaluatori / arbitri / jurați}}
<div lang="en">
{{Însemn orientare/en|summary=Proposed judging process, weighted criteria and worked scoring examples for evaluators.|type=Working draft / proposal|related=[[Competition rules - draft]] · [[Insemn competition - organisation plan]]}}

__TOC__

Assessment must be objective, detailed and transparent. Each entry will be analysed against clear criteria, and scores brought together to produce a final ranking based on performance. The assessment process, scoring criteria, collation and checking methods are set out below.

== I. Assessment criteria ==
Each entry should be assessed against the following criteria, with their respective weights in the final score. These cover technical, conceptual and aesthetic aspects.

=== 1. Relevance to the theme (20%) ===
* How well the design reflects the required themes and captures the locality's character, such as its history, culture or geography.
* Score: 1, very poor, to 10, excellent.
=== 2. Originality and creativity (20%) ===
* Innovation and uniqueness. Designs must be original and contain no commonplace or copied elements.
* Score: 1, very poor, to 10, excellent.
=== 3. Clarity and simplicity (15%) ===
* How easily the logo can be recognised and remembered. Avoid excessive, unnecessary detail.
* Score: 1, very poor, to 10, excellent.
=== 4. Technical quality (20%) ===
* Technical correctness, compliance with format, dimensions, vectorisation and other specifications, and the quality of lines, shapes and colours.
* Score: 1, very poor, to 10, excellent.
=== 5. Practical application (15%) ===
* Versatility across print, digital materials, posters and banners. The design must scale and work on multiple media.
* Score: 1, very poor, to 10, excellent.
=== 6. Additional requirements (10%) ===
* Compliance with requirements such as colour and monochrome versions, safe margins and proportions.
* Score: 1, very poor, to 10, excellent.

== II. Scoring system ==
Each judge awards 1–10 points for every criterion, with 10 as the maximum. The respective weights are then applied to obtain the final score.

# '''Each criterion has a weight''' in the final score, as stated above. All scores are calculated using that weight.
'''Example for one entry:'''
* Relevance: 8 points, weighted 20% = 8 x 0.2 = 1.6.
* Originality and creativity: 9 points, weighted 20% = 9 x 0.2 = 1.8.
* Clarity and simplicity: 7 points, weighted 15% = 7 x 0.15 = 1.05.
* Technical quality: 10 points, weighted 20% = 10 x 0.2 = 2.0.
* Practical application: 7 points, weighted 15% = 7 x 0.15 = 1.05.
* Additional requirements: 9 points, weighted 10% = 9 x 0.1 = 0.9.
'''Total = 1.6 + 1.8 + 1.05 + 2.0 + 1.05 + 0.9 = 8.4''', on a 1–10 scale.

# '''Add the judges' scores''' and calculate the arithmetic mean for each entry.
'''Example:'''
* Judge 1: 8.4
* Judge 2: 9.1
* Judge 3: 8.8
'''Mean = (8.4 + 9.1 + 8.8) / 3 = 8.77'''

# '''Final ranking:''' Rank entries by their mean scores. The highest mean comes first, followed by the rest in descending order.

== III. Collating and checking scores ==
# '''Individual assessment sheet:''' Each judge completes a sheet for every entry, recording each criterion separately. Sheets may be completed by hand or digitally using a predefined Excel or Google Sheets table.
# '''Collating scores:''' Once sheets are complete, bring the scores into an automated Excel/Google Sheets calculation system. Multiply each score by its weight, then calculate each entry's final result as the arithmetic mean of all judges' scores.
# '''Checking system:''' An assessment coordinator checks the collated scores and calculations:
#* Check every sheet to ensure all criteria were scored correctly.
#* Confirm correct application of weights.
#* Check that each entry's arithmetic mean was calculated correctly.
# '''Provisional ranking:''' After the first assessment stage, generate a provisional ranking. Review and discuss it at a final jury meeting to ensure fair treatment of all entries.
# '''Reviewing closely ranked entries:''' At the final deliberation, reconsider entries with similar scores or close to the leading places to ensure fair scoring. Judges may request reassessment where they believe mistakes or omissions occurred.
# '''Final ranking:''' After checking entries and confirming scores, establish the final ranking, signed by all judges to validate it.

== IV. Checking and validating results ==
# '''Final documentation:''' Retain all scores, assessment sheets and collated results in a digital archive to keep the process transparent.
# '''Publication:''' Publish the final ranking with a brief account of the criteria and scoring process, supporting transparency and participants' trust.
# '''Results and feedback:''' Where necessary, judges may give detailed feedback on lower-scoring entries, explaining their scores.

This detailed system ensures fair assessment against clear, transparent criteria. Collating and checking results supports accuracy, while deliberation meetings allow careful reconsideration of competitive entries.

== Legal implementation note — Romania / EU ==
Adopt weights and criteria before registration and align them with final rules. Judges disclose conflicts, recuse themselves from affected assessments, preserve confidentiality and access only necessary data. Explain rejection and publish an impartial appeals process. Judging and related agreements do not transfer authors’ rights.

== Legislative references ==
Reviewed: 16 October 2026. For other countries check local law; recheck applicable law at the edition date.
* [https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/175630 Codul civil / Civil Code — Legea / Law nr. 287/2009], regulile contractuale și de răspundere / contract and liability rules.
* [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679 GDPR], art. 5–6 și / and 32.
* [https://legislatie.just.ro/public/detaliidocument/7816 Legea / Law nr. 8/1996], drepturile autorului / copyright.
</div>
{{Însemn subsol/en}}
[[Categorie:English pages]]
[[Categorie:Organising the competition]]
[[Categorie:Drafts and proposals]]