2023 CGC Grading Contest Summer Edition (#7) Round 2 10 10

[Morganmi]

Dang aced 3 of them but was to harsh  by 2 points on the More Fun and too lenient by 2 point on the HOS. 

Definitely couldn't see the water stains on the HOS but saw  it on the back cover of the ASM. 

[Yorick]

On 7/28/2023 at 6:45 PM, Jesse-Lee said:

Oof, I really crashed this round...

More Fun #102 - 5.0  +3

Harvey Library #1 - 3.5  +3

TTA #11 - 6.0  +2

Spidey #38 - 7.0  +2

HoS #92 - 8.0  +5 (ouch)

15 points in round 2, after 5 in round 1...

I like your first few grades.  I felt the same for the first three books:

More Fun #102 - 4.5 (that's a big tear at the bottom there....)

Harvey Library #1 - 3.5 (staple out, large spine split)

TTA #11 - 5.5

Spidey #38 - 5.0

HoS #92 - 5.5

 

[mysterymachine]

I went over my grades changing them around. I should have known better to do that.

 More Fun 102   5.5  4.0     +5

Harvey Library    3.5           +3

TTA11                 6.0           +2

Spidey 38           6.0  5.0    +2

HOS 92              5.5            

12 points total.  

[fastballspecial]

I got crushed. I didnt see the stains on the Spidey and HOS.

Graded the top too harder then i should have.  Got close on TTA 11.

This time around I am just finishing to say I completed what a disaster.

[topofthetotem]

My results.

[boron]

On 7/28/2023 at 10:44 PM, Nsschenks said:

 

 

2. 3.5 (+3) *- I honestly had no idea how to factor in the staple--if I had known it didn't matter below 6.0 I would definitely have gone a bit higher. Oh well, live and learn.

 

 

Same thoughts on the Staple - yes, now we know...maybe

[Old Fashion PB and J]

my worst round of any contest ever.

[Tom789]

It looks like I was one of the lowest graders on HoS at 6.0 - but I didn't see any water stains either.  My grade was based on what appears to be a reader's crease, at least fiber-breaking, running down most of the left front spine.  But based on most grader's responses here, that wouldn't have resulted in such a low grade.  I guess I was too harsh on the crease?

[Comics4All]

2 

 

for this me!

Edited July 30, 2023 by Comics4All

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:24 AM, ChrispyC66 said:

@CGC Mike I think the fact that you brought the two specific graders notes for ASM #38 and HoS #92 to our attention means that you may feel they could have a serious effect on the grades submitted.

Thanks Chrispy for making this point. I would have liked the opportunity to make the case for discounting those two books but the decision was made while I was asleep in the UK. We are given five days each round to grade the books but were given only a 30 minute window to comment on whether an error which may have a material impact would be allowed to stand. Keeping in books with undisclosed hidden defects is potentially unfair, as I suspect it will disadvantage the better graders. A few people have posted results which showed that they significantly undergraded all five books and, in doing so, bullseyed the HoS. Those with a history of consistently getting within one increment of CGCs grade will of course overgrade books with undisclosed hidden defects. The results will surely end up skewed, peversely penalising the better performers,

There is still an option to eliminate any unfairness by dropping those two books. We'll all be judged fairly on 18 level playing field books. Changing a results table after the event rarely looks good regardless of the merits of doing it. Those who drop down feel cheated if it happens and others will feel that they were put out of contention if it doesn't. But the results table hasn't been posted yet.

@CGC Mike, is it too late to reconsider?

 

 

[zzutak]

On 7/30/2023 at 12:43 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Those with a history of consistently getting within one increment of CGCs grade will of course overgrade books with undisclosed hidden defects. The results will surely end up skewed, peversely penalising the better performers

While I agree with this aspect of your assessment, I still believe that "moving on" is the less problematic path.  These contests are intended to be entertaining (as opposed to "life changing").  We're being asked to predict CGC grades based on very limited data (namely, two flat scans).  As far as I'm concerned, the fact that we're not able to examine a "live" specimen up close means that the data upon which we base our grade will ALWAYS be incomplete.  Irritating?  Perhaps, but only at the same level as, say, a hangnail. 

I judged the ASM #38 to be a 6.0 with no suspicion that the interior was stained.  In other words, I don't think this particular hidden and undisclosed defect affects the book's grade.  However, as I mentioned a few pages back, I did get crushed on the HOS #92 (my 7.5 vs CGC's 5.5 -- my first-ever four grade increment whiff  ).  Once Mike posts the full Round 2 grade distribution data, I think we'll see that most of the more experienced participants made comparable judgments.

A do-over will set a precedent that we will absolutely, positively come to regret at some point down the road.    Trust me on this. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:52 AM, zzutak said:

While I agree with this aspect of your assessment, I still believe that "moving on" is the less problematic path.  These contests are intended to be entertaining (as opposed to "life changing").  We're being asked to predict CGC grades based on very limited data (namely, two flat scans).  As far as I'm concerned, the fact that we're not able to examine a "live" specimen up close means that the data upon which we base our grade will ALWAYS be incomplete.  Irritating?  Perhaps, but only at the same level as, say, a hangnail. 

I judged the ASM #38 to be a 6.0 with no suspicion that the interior was stained.  In other words, I don't think this particular hidden and undisclosed defect affects the book's grade.  However, as I mentioned a few pages back, I did get crushed on the HOS #92 (my 7.5 vs CGC's 5.5 -- my first-ever four grade increment whiff  ).  Once Mike posts the full Round 2 grade distribution data, I think we'll see that most of the more experienced participants made comparable judgments.

A do-over will set a precedent that we will absolutely, positively come to regret at some point down the road.    Trust me on this. 

I see and appreciate your points zzutak. I would argue that removing the two books is not a do-over, however. It's just preserving fairness as far as it is possible to do so. It may well be that the books do not have a material impact in the end, but there will always be the perception that something wasn't right if they are left in. There will be participants at the top end of the table who will look at the final leaderboard positions and know that they would have been in the running had they had that key information. Judging people on 18 books, where nothing is hidden, is fair to all. Judging people on 20 books however, where the exclusion of key information on two of them potentially rewards the less vigilant is clearly less fair. So for me there are two choices and one is fairer than the other.

If there is no support for my stance I'll leave it alone, of course. I've always tried to support these competitions and it gives me no pleasure to post this. I took a day to think it over before doing so. But I think we're all adult enough to agree that an innocent mistake has been made, but also that that mistake has consequences. For me, correcting it is therefore the best of the available choices and doesn't have to be that much of a deal. 

[sledgehammer]

On 7/30/2023 at 4:19 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I see and appreciate your points zzutak. I would argue that removing the two books is not a do-over, however. It's just preserving fairness as far as it is possible to do so. It may well be that the books do not have a material impact in the end, but there will always be the perception that something wasn't right if they are left in. There will be participants at the top end of the table who will look at the final leaderboard positions and know that they would have been in the running had they had that key information. Judging people on 18 books, where nothing is hidden, is fair to all. Judging people on 20 books however, where the exclusion of key information on two of them potentially rewards the less vigilant is clearly less fair. So for me there are two choices and one is fairer than the other.

If there is no support for my stance I'll leave it alone, of course. I've always tried to support these competitions and it gives me no pleasure to post this. I took a day to think it over before doing so. But I think we're all adult enough to agree that an innocent mistake has been made, but also that that mistake has consequences. For me, correcting it is therefore the best of the available choices and doesn't have to be that much of a deal. 

There is definitely support for your stance.

Edited July 30, 2023 by sledgehammer

[Ride the Tiger]

I would support that stance too but it kind of got decided before some of us had a chance to throw in our 2 cents. Patiently waiting for the round results to see where everyone else was on the certain books.

[sledgehammer]

On 7/30/2023 at 6:55 AM, Ride the Tiger said:

I would support that stance too but it kind of got decided before some of us had a chance to throw in our 2 cents. Patiently waiting for the round results to see where everyone else was on the certain books.

I don't think it matters where everyone else was. If it hurts one participant, that would have finished in the top 3, then it's very simply not OK.

[Ride the Tiger]

On 7/30/2023 at 6:58 AM, sledgehammer said:

I don't think it matters where everyone else was. If it hurts one participant, that would have finished in the top 3, then it's very simply not OK.

I agree. Moving forward I'm sure we will improve the contest to make sure it is as fair as possible for everyone. 

[CGC Mike]

On 7/30/2023 at 8:03 AM, Ride the Tiger said:

Moving forward I'm sure we will improve the contest to make sure it is as fair as possible for everyone. 

Absolutely.  Looking back, I feel it became too late to stop the mistake I made when the first person submitted their grades.  For me to go back and try to correct it, will be harmful for some.  No matter what is done, there will be unhappy people.  What I can do, is try to prevent this from happening again.  I am not totally ruling out adding 2 books to replace the 9th and tenth book in round 4. Right now, more people have posted that we should move on.   

[skypinkblu]

I got book 4 correct (probably by accident) and lost 2 points on the #5.  I didn't see water stains, but when I blew it up, I saw damage on the left. I blew the grade, should have made it lower, and I'm sure some people got it correct. 

Overall, I tend to stress over any kind of test more than I should...but these "tests" are supposed to be fun, it's not a test that will get you a promotion, or into a better school..

I also know it's stressful for Mike, these contests are a lot of work...so I think moving on is best.

[Get Marwood & I]

OK, apologies Mike if I added to your stress. I genuinely thought my solution was sensible and, if anything, would alleviate any issues 

Happy to go with the majority and I'll get my R3 scores in shortly.

[paqart]

On 7/30/2023 at 8:22 AM, skypinkblu said:

I got book 4 correct (probably by accident) and lost 2 points on the #5.  I didn't see water stains, but when I blew it up, I saw damage on the left. I blew the grade, should have made it lower, and I'm sure some people got it correct. 

Overall, I tend to stress over any kind of test more than I should...but these "tests" are supposed to be fun, it's not a test that will get you a promotion, or into a better school..

I also know it's stressful for Mike, these contests are a lot of work...so I think moving on is best.

I gave the HoS a 5.5, and the Spidey a 6.5, losing a point on each. I undergraded the rest by 1 point each: MF: 5.5, HL: 4, TTA: 6. So, removing the last two would hurt my overall. However, not because of an accident. I was suspicious of the HoS so I looked it over carefully and saw the staining. Overshot the mark for the downgrade, but it was for the right reason.