Reimagining Plant Judging

[Leafmite]

Our OS give gift cards as 'trophies' to our winners in each category. So, the winners do take home some money.

I think it makes more sense to vote without money. I have found through working at our shows, year after year, that, most often, it is not the orchid people who donate the most money but just kind, generous people who have seen that there is a show and decided to walk through So, if you think it is only the knowledgeable people who will vote...nope. You have forgotten an entire category of people.

[epiphyte78]

Leafmite, gift cards are better awards than ribbons.

The Fern and Exotic Plant show can have too many or too few Hoyas. The problem with voting is that people are simply saying whether they like Hoyas. It doesn't tell us how many of them should be in the show.

With donating though, you aren't just answering whether you like Hoyas, you're answering how much you like them. The more money that you donate to Hoyas, the more of them you want in the show.

This is pretty much how it works in the sales area. The more Hoyas you buy, the more of them you want supplied.

[Scadoxus]

I must say that I agree with you epiphyte78, that the collective knowledge of the group might be superior to that of the judges.
This reminds me of our willingness to donate to street performers. When we are out and about and encounter them we have the option to show our appreciation for the years they have spent honing their skills with a small/large or no donation. This would be the same case at a plant show.

[Mountaineer370]

I believe there is a big difference between street performers and exhibitors at a plant show. Street performers are generally understood to be trying to earn money with their performances. Do they love what they're doing? Probably, but I'm guessing they're trying to pay the rent, too.

At plant shows, like most other hobby shows, most of the exhibitors are there for the enjoyment of showing off the object of their particular interest, not because it is how they hope to earn a living or supplement their income. Of course, we understand and appreciate the time and expense that goes into producing the final product for exhibition, and if the prizes awarded include money or other items of value, that's a nice bonus.

Most of these shows invite vendors to come in and sell their wares, and these vendors differ from the exhibitors in that they are making a living from producing orchids or whatever the product is.

[Scadoxus]

The big idea here is that the people at shows are just using their dollars and cents to signify how much they like the exhibitor's plant. It is obvious that the exhibitor is not showing a plant in the hopes of supplementing their income. The real value in this venture is to signal through spending how much the plant is appreciated. Spending is in fact a very common way for us to communicate our choice/preference. We do it on a daily basis when we spend money at the mall, market, or movies, .

[jcec1]

An interesting concept.

In this system, whoever has the most money at the end of the day may not be the most popular. All it needs is one individual to "donate" a large amount of money to one individual and will skew the result. You could argue that this person loves the plant so much, he thinks it's worth say $100 of appreciation, compared to other plants that are receiving a $1 of love from 50 others. Or it could be this is just somebody with deep pockets and little or no merit.
To create some sense of equality, then each donation would need to be the same, in which case whether you have a dollar or a pebble to tally up it wouldn't matter.

I don't exhibit orchids or anything, but I would prefer that my plant was awarded by someone who was an expert, and could say well done, you've done a good job based on x,y and z, rather than looking to see how much money I collected which doesn't really tell me anything.

[epiphyte78]

jcec1, the two judging systems aren't mutually exclusive. Say that you put a Cattleya into the show. Before the show opened, your orchid would be traditionally judged. Once the show opened, then your orchid would be judged by everyone.

The experts give you a blue ribbon. You're pretty happy to receive it. But then nobody earmarks any donations to your orchid. This means that the same exact expert judges who decided that your Cattleya deserved a ribbon, also decided that it didn't even deserve a penny.

Sure, you did a good job based on x,y and z... but evidently nobody actually cares about x, y and z. You met, and maybe even exceeded, stupid standards. Congratulations?

Truly important and significant and relevant things are worth some sacrifice. So each and every expert should have the wonderful opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

[jcec1]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

jcec1, the two judging systems aren't mutually exclusive. Say that you put a Cattleya into the show. Before the show opened, your orchid would be traditionally judged. Once the show opened, then your orchid would be judged by everyone.

The experts give you a blue ribbon. You're pretty happy to receive it. But then nobody earmarks any donations to your orchid. This means that the same exact expert judges who decided that your Cattleya deserved a ribbon, also decided that it didn't even deserve a penny.

Sure, you did a good job based on x,y and z... but evidently nobody actually cares about x, y and z. You met, and maybe even exceeded, stupid standards. Congratulations?

Truly important and significant and relevant things are worth some sacrifice. So each and every expert should have the wonderful opportunity to put their money where their mouth is.

In this purely hypothetical circumstance where I won a blue ribbon, but nobody donated any money tbh I would rather have the ribbon. Being recognised for achieving something is the reward in itself, the money would be less important.

[epiphyte78]

Originally Posted by jcec1

In this purely hypothetical circumstance where I won a blue ribbon, but nobody donated any money tbh I would rather have the ribbon. Being recognised for achieving something is the reward in itself, the money would be less important.

Maybe you missed it. The experts themselves did not donate even a penny to your orchid. The experts themselves felt that your achievement was worthless.

I just checked out the Guinness World Records facebook page. Some guy was recognized for having the largest kidney. Did he achieve something? I guess. But how important is his achievement? How much of your money is it worth? It's certainly not worth any of my money.

It's a different story if some guy pulls all my weeds. This achievement would definitely be worth some of my money. If some other guy invents a robot that can pull all of my weeds, then this achievement would be worth even more of my money.

The relevance of an achievement can only be determined/revealed by sacrifice. If expert judges aren't willing to even spend a penny on your orchid that they awarded, then clearly they perceive that the achievement is entirely irrelevant.

[jcec1]

Originally Posted by epiphyte78

Maybe you missed it. The experts themselves did not donate even a penny to your orchid. The experts themselves felt that your achievement was worthless.

I just checked out the Guinness World Records facebook page. Some guy was recognized for having the largest kidney. Did he achieve something? I guess. But how important is his achievement? How much of your money is it worth? It's certainly not worth any of my money.

It's a different story if some guy pulls all my weeds. This achievement would definitely be worth some of my money. If some other guy invents a robot that can pull all of my weeds, then this achievement would be worth even more of my money.

The relevance of an achievement can only be determined/revealed by sacrifice. If expert judges aren't willing to even spend a penny on your orchid that they awarded, then clearly they perceive that the achievement is entirely irrelevant.

In this hypothetical situation, where the judges give me a blue ribbon, but then don't give me any money, then I would be sceptical of their judgment- if money is the true arbiter of achievement.
So, in this system if my Cattleya makes $200 in one show and then the next day it makes $2 at another show, has it achieved less?

Would my orchid be a better orchid, if a billionaire judge give me a thousand dollars or a poor one give me ten cents?