Difference between revisions of "Chat Solution"
From Pablo's ATH 2017
m |
m |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | '''Fri 19/1/18''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Have been through again [[File:Marks for ATH 2017 OWLs.xlsx]] and been more stringent so marked in grey definite 'no points', and marked in yellow 'we should really get this point'. Hope that makes sense - grateful for any help with this! Suggested email to them: | ||
| + | :Dear Setters | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Please see the OWLs marking spreadsheet; I have tried really hard to be impartial but it's very difficult! Apologies for having many queries: most of it is totally straightfoward, but I have basically raised a query against everything 'ambiguous' (i.e. where the thought 'But... but... BUT!' crossed my mind). For the hex queries I included the relevant part of our own answers so you don't have to keep going back and forth between docs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I then went through them again and marked in grey anything where I thought 'Give it up and just deal with it!' (but I've left the comment in the Query column anyway). Colour-coded in yellow, however, is anything where I thought 'Really, we should definitely get that point', so please could you focus on those trickier ones! | ||
| + | |||
| + | :What I can't do is understand what your own criteria are, and how you're applying them across the board. So please could you finish this off for us, and we will of course accept your decision as final. Many thanks again for a really enjoyable ATH this year, and congrats on such a big upturn in the numbers of teams! | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Kind regards. | ||
| + | :Jo | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Wed 17/1/18''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'll email you all to come and take a look. Please could you let me know if the comments etc. I've made here are fair? | ||
| + | [[File:Marks for ATH 2017 OWLs.xlsx]] | ||
| + | Should I be less whingy? Change anything? Please let me know! | ||
| + | I think as a minimum we should get 370/469 which is 79% so really excellent! I am quite miffed about some of the marking scheme's weightings and points for arbitrary things but not others, but oh well!! | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
'''Tue 16/1/18''' | '''Tue 16/1/18''' | ||
Waiting impatiently for the solution!! They have updated the main site to show that the title *was* Another Fine Mess (yay!) and the themes: 'Mess, Messy, Messier'. Since Mark W had said there were no points for guessing the title, I guess we won't lose points for not stating those themes, either. Wondering now though if I should have done a summary of all the themes!! Ah well. --[[User:JoC|JoC]] ([[User talk:JoC|talk]]) 12:35, 16 January 2018 (GMT) | Waiting impatiently for the solution!! They have updated the main site to show that the title *was* Another Fine Mess (yay!) and the themes: 'Mess, Messy, Messier'. Since Mark W had said there were no points for guessing the title, I guess we won't lose points for not stating those themes, either. Wondering now though if I should have done a summary of all the themes!! Ah well. --[[User:JoC|JoC]] ([[User talk:JoC|talk]]) 12:35, 16 January 2018 (GMT) | ||
| + | :There is more there to have got than I thought there would be, but there is a huge amount we DID get! I think we'll be in the top 12... ?! Who wants to mark with me - it would be good it at least two of us have a go and compare what we think. Now I have to go back to work, having barely been able to look at the solution! xxx --[[User:JoC|JoC]] ([[User talk:JoC|talk]]) 12:56, 16 January 2018 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:47, 19 January 2018
Fri 19/1/18
Have been through again File:Marks for ATH 2017 OWLs.xlsx and been more stringent so marked in grey definite 'no points', and marked in yellow 'we should really get this point'. Hope that makes sense - grateful for any help with this! Suggested email to them:
- Dear Setters
- Please see the OWLs marking spreadsheet; I have tried really hard to be impartial but it's very difficult! Apologies for having many queries: most of it is totally straightfoward, but I have basically raised a query against everything 'ambiguous' (i.e. where the thought 'But... but... BUT!' crossed my mind). For the hex queries I included the relevant part of our own answers so you don't have to keep going back and forth between docs.
- I then went through them again and marked in grey anything where I thought 'Give it up and just deal with it!' (but I've left the comment in the Query column anyway). Colour-coded in yellow, however, is anything where I thought 'Really, we should definitely get that point', so please could you focus on those trickier ones!
- What I can't do is understand what your own criteria are, and how you're applying them across the board. So please could you finish this off for us, and we will of course accept your decision as final. Many thanks again for a really enjoyable ATH this year, and congrats on such a big upturn in the numbers of teams!
- Kind regards.
- Jo
Wed 17/1/18
I'll email you all to come and take a look. Please could you let me know if the comments etc. I've made here are fair? File:Marks for ATH 2017 OWLs.xlsx Should I be less whingy? Change anything? Please let me know! I think as a minimum we should get 370/469 which is 79% so really excellent! I am quite miffed about some of the marking scheme's weightings and points for arbitrary things but not others, but oh well!!
Tue 16/1/18
Waiting impatiently for the solution!! They have updated the main site to show that the title *was* Another Fine Mess (yay!) and the themes: 'Mess, Messy, Messier'. Since Mark W had said there were no points for guessing the title, I guess we won't lose points for not stating those themes, either. Wondering now though if I should have done a summary of all the themes!! Ah well. --JoC (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2018 (GMT)
- There is more there to have got than I thought there would be, but there is a huge amount we DID get! I think we'll be in the top 12... ?! Who wants to mark with me - it would be good it at least two of us have a go and compare what we think. Now I have to go back to work, having barely been able to look at the solution! xxx --JoC (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2018 (GMT)
