I would have to agree that more info from the photographer should be required for a critique. An in-depth critique is a two-way street with a lot of info coming from the photographer as the first pass, then the critique coming from the critiquer.
As to restructure how photos are doled out - make it a revolving bottom 25. The 25 lowest are in the queue, one is randomly taken out, next lowest is put in the queue.
This is trivial to code, exceeding trivial to code, and gets the critiques to those entries that need it.
There's no need to pull in past performance, past critiques, past anything - the critiquer can, and should, take into account past information.
This method is literally a two-liner in coding, critiques are randomly doled out with the most-needed first, and on a per-challenge basis.
As to the "check for critique" box - the photographer should be required to fill out basic photo information before it's available.
|