On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Am 09.06.2011 03:57, schrieb Brad Roberts:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Moritz Warning wrote:
>> 
>>> Congratulations to both winners!
>>> Pfft, if I have had time to vote, I might have
>>> robbed one of his prize (sorry Brad). :)
>> 
>> I hadn't brought it up yet, but the fact that there were only 25 votes is, really, fairly sad.  I too didn't vote.  I know this community is _far_ larger than 25 people.  Heck, even the number of posters to this forum is larger.
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> Later,
>> Brad
>> 
> 
> Maybe some people didn't have the time or motivation to read all articles? Or they couldn't decide which article to vote for (and this indeed was really hard)?
> 
> So what was your reason not to vote? ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> - Daniel

Primarily time.

On 09/06/2011 02:57, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Moritz Warning wrote:
> 
>> Congratulations to both winners!
>> Pfft, if I have had time to vote, I might have
>> robbed one of his prize (sorry Brad). :)
> 
> I hadn't brought it up yet, but the fact that there were only 25 votes is, really, fairly sad.  I too didn't vote.  I know this community is _far_ larger than 25 people.  Heck, even the number of posters to this forum is larger.
> 
> Why?

Not allowed to.
I'm reading the D groups for a few months now but never posted before.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 06:31:50 -0400, Johannes Totz <johannes@jo-t.de> wrote:

> On 09/06/2011 02:57, Brad Roberts wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, Moritz Warning wrote:
>>
>>> Congratulations to both winners!
>>> Pfft, if I have had time to vote, I might have
>>> robbed one of his prize (sorry Brad). :)
>>
>> I hadn't brought it up yet, but the fact that there were only 25 votes
>> is, really, fairly sad.  I too didn't vote.  I know this community is
>> _far_ larger than 25 people.  Heck, even the number of posters to this
>> forum is larger.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Not allowed to.
> I'm reading the D groups for a few months now but never posted before.

Now you can vote in the next one :)

-Steve

On 09/06/2011 15:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Now you can vote in the next one :)

So there is going to be a next one? Maybe next time I won't pull the short straw! :<

Congratulations anyway, to Dave as well, your articles were both great!

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:03:14 -0400, Robert Clipsham <robert@octarineparrot.com> wrote:

> On 09/06/2011 15:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Now you can vote in the next one :)
>
> So there is going to be a next one? Maybe next time I won't pull the short straw! :<
>
> Congratulations anyway, to Dave as well, your articles were both great!
>

Thanks!

To be one vote away is not too bad either!  I think all the articles were very good.  I told myself on tuesday, no matter what happened, I would be glad that I pushed myself to write an article that helped people.  I definitely learned from everyone's articles.  It actually makes me want to write more articles...

BTW, I debated heavily whether to vote for yours or David's, it really was tough.  One vote for you instead of him and the fortunes change dramatically!  I'm sure there were some other people who had trouble deciding between my article and someone else's also.  It's crazy how close it was.

-Steve

On 2011-06-09 11:03, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On 09/06/2011 15:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > Now you can vote in the next one :)
> 
> So there is going to be a next one? Maybe next time I won't pull the short straw! :<

Short straw? At least yours got some votes! Mine got none. ;)

> Congratulations anyway, to Dave as well, your articles were both great!

Yes. All of the articles are definitely solid contributions to the D community. I even learned from Steve's article, when I would have thought that I would have known everything in the topic he covered.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 6/9/2011 11:26 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> At least yours got some votes! Mine got none. ;)

I wouldn't worry about that. Consider the Olympics, where the difference between the winners and the rest is, frankly, microscopic. The contest is devised to exaggerate the tiniest of differences.

I think all the articles were great!

On 6/9/2011 11:03 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> So there is going to be a next one?

Yes, maybe in 6 months or so. I'm very happy with how this one turned out.

But next time we need to devise a tie-breaking rule. Any suggestions? A runoff?

BTW, there's nothing in the rules preventing an author from tooting his own horn and doing a bit of marketing of their article(s) for votes!

On 2011-06-09 11:58, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 11:26 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > At least yours got some votes! Mine got none. ;)
> 
> I wouldn't worry about that. Consider the Olympics, where the difference between the winners and the rest is, frankly, microscopic. The contest is devised to exaggerate the tiniest of differences.
> 
> I think all the articles were great!

Oh, I don't really mind. It doesn't mean that my article was bad, just that no one who voted didn't think that it was the best. It doesn't even mean that mine would win the "worst article" vote if we were to be mean enough to have such a vote. It just means that no one thought that my article was the best.

I didn't really write my article for the contest anyway, so it's not a big deal. I wrote the article because it clearly needed to be written, and getting it in the contest was just a nice bonus.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 09/06/2011 20:02, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 11:03 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
>> So there is going to be a next one?
>
> Yes, maybe in 6 months or so. I'm very happy with how this one turned out.

Excellent! I really enjoyed writing my article, 'twas great fun. I plan on writing more, the major set backs for me are lack of ideas and lack of time (though if I find something interesting time seems to manifest itself anyway).

> But next time we need to devise a tie-breaking rule. Any suggestions? A
> runoff?

This could be difficult - if I'd had one more vote we'd have had a three way tie, and I doubt another round of voting would have made a difference.

My suggestion would be something more imaginative to tie break. We can't do rock paper scissors over the internet or use a random number generator without people complaining about it being fixed, but how about a puzzle of some sort? Obviously it should be accessible to all (we could get a fantastic article from someone who's not from an academic background that would struggle with say, an Euler problem). Perhaps who can do X in the coolest possible way using D. Then that could be voted on.

Alternatively, there could be another round of articles (probably too time consuming) or opening voting up to other programming communities. I had some other ideas, but I've forgotten them.

> BTW, there's nothing in the rules preventing an author from tooting his
> own horn and doing a bit of marketing of their article(s) for votes!

Who says we didn't do that? :D

The D community is far too moral though, when it's the last 30 minutes of the competition everyone claims they don't have enough time to read the articles, they refuse to vote blindly. Not that I'd know of course!

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/