I'm sure you understood my point that it has absolutely no significance whatsoever because whatever it was it has no effect of the formal judging processs.

Also, the significance of the leaked Winners page is entirely due to the fact that the (formal) judging hasn't started yet. It obviously doesn't fit with how the contest is supposed to be run or how any decent contest would be run.

It's evidence of what we at OT have been saying all along: the BMFAC is an unfair "contest". This winners page is a peak at what's been going on behind the scenes. There's a lot more to the contest than the official rules would suggest. Or rather, there's a lot less.

The fact that none of the judges seem to know what's going on just confirms that they're not very involved in the judging process and that the whole contest is orchestrated by the Director; a personal associate of all the "judges" and someone with a well established reputation for behind the scenes scheming.

That would be nice.

How exactly is the BMFAC site designed? You don’t say.

How should I know?

Why do you feel that what the “winners page” shows is “irrelevant”? You don’t say.

I thought I did say: it's irrelevent because the judging hasn't taken place, hence there are no winners yet.

Google could have found and cached it easily through its bot before Tim ever accidentally stumbled into it.

Think a little harder about that and tell me how Google could find a page when there are no links to it.

can you confirm that no BMFAC judge will have work in this year’s exhibition?

I was told that panel members wouldn't be having images in the exhibition.

I could take you at your word. Or I could also remind myself that you have personally gained from BMFAC and may have an interest in seeing that it continues to be run without any changes. You’ve been a judge, after all, yet still had your own work displayed in previous BMFAC exhibitions that were publicized as rigorously juried, international art contests.

Much outside suspicion might be relieved if BMFAC and its organizers would stop being so secretive. How exactly is the BMFAC site designed? You don’t say. Are you relying on Jones’ UF List explanation? Even if he is some kind of scripting genius, I don’t need a slide rule to know that common sense dictates that sorting can only occur if someone is directing it to be done. Why do you feel that what the “winners page” shows is “irrelevant”? You don’t say. I know what it looks like it shows. It looks like current entries are being pre-screened and categorized. Who should I believe? You? Or my lying eyes?

Since the judging is done online, how does it work exactly? Can the judges know they are seeing all of the entries and not just those culled out by the director? Does everyone on the selection panel do an equal amount of judging, including Benoit Mandelbrot and judges who are not artists? Is there some kind of cross-talk among the judges, or does each submit an independent vote that is later tallied by the director? Does the director have a vote as well? I only ask the last question because I’m beginning to suspect that he’s already doing a bit of pre-voting.

You say pages need to be tested “before they are made live.” But the “winners page” was live. Google could have found and cached it easily through its bot before Tim ever accidentally stumbled into it. All the same, the important point not to be lost here is that Jones has accused OT of “hacking.” He’s lying.

And while you’re in such a talkative mood with OT, can you confirm that no BMFAC judge will have work in this year’s exhibition? Some of our readers would like to be reassured, especially since the BMFAC rules page is fuzzy on this subject.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Terry

I knew that because I hadn't been asked to do any judging yet. From pervious exprience I can tell you that the judges get to see all of the entries (without any "hints" as to what to select). We see a lot of images and it can be hard work to judge them all.

As to the link being public because Google indexed it – where do you think it got the link from? You're just saying that the link was public because you made it public.

TBH, I would hope those selections are not the eventual winners