Nem5 Web Maggic Awards Program Helpware - Article 4 - Page 2 Criteria Criterion - How to Make the Rules! © Maggi Norris - December 15, 1999 Opinions Getting opinions on your criteria is always a good idea. Just because you understand something does not mean everyone will understand it as you do. Ask people what they think something means. If they give you an answer that is very different from what you are trying to say, then try to reword that point of your criteria. Do this over and over until you find the right way to say it so you get the response you expect and need. Don't ask just one person. You need the opinion of many to truly get an understanding of how well you are understood. Keep track of any questions or comments. If you get a complaint that something is not understood you should focus on that point until it is made clear. You Make the Rules Once you have made your criteria it is important to stick to your guns. If you make the rules, you should follow them. If you do not your award program loses its credibility. While your criteria should not make it too easy to win your award, it should not be made so difficult it becomes impossible to earn. An award that can not be won by any site, no matter how well done, is a waste of web space. Level Awards Some programs find the use of one award that covers all criteria points to be sufficient. Programs that want a multi-level award system need to add the extra points needed to earn each individual award. If your site gives Gold, Silver, Bronze or other awards in specific categories each award should have its guidelines placed online. You should note your general criteria to win all awards as well as each award's unique criteria. Upgrades While some criteria may remain the same from the very beginning, that is not true for all programs. Over time you will see many sites that make you change your ideas of what the best site online is. You will also find that some of your criteria will become less important as new ideas form or that they don't really make a difference in how well a site is designed. As this happens, it is important to upgrade your criteria to match these new contexts for evaluation. New methods of web design show up every day. The growth of your criteria should reflect your understanding of the changing times. Even as you upgrade, you should remember that a good awards program requires some consistency. If you upgrade the program, you should make note of it on your site. You should not change a rule a day. If you upgrade, it should be a major upgrade that actually makes a difference to the overall structure of how you judge sites. Once you have your criteria online, keep track of changes you would like to make on the next upgrade. Think hard before changing the rules. If you change a point, will it actually make a difference in judging? Once you change your criteria online, it is in writing (so to speak). This is how your applicants will expect you to view their sites. Layout Bunching criteria points into one large interminable group makes them harder for most to read and understand. Even if you have them all in a row to score sites, it helps your applicants to easier understand them if the points are listed by category on your site. Getting It Read There are different methods of ensuring that your applicants understand the requirements for the award. No matter the method you choose, getting your criteria read can be difficult. Sites who really care about whether they win will read it. Reading the other articles in this series will give you clues into how to assure it is read. I read them myself and gained a lot from it. Credits Now that we have made the long traverse into building solid criteria, I would like to note some very special people who helped me make my own criteria and awards program what it is. In the beginning, there was Rick Doran. I learned a lot about judging websites and building a solid criteria list from Rick. He watched my program grow, gave advice and insight that helped me work out the basis of my own awards and helped me understand how to deal with many of the problems inherent with any awards program. Next came all the people who believed in my program enough to list it on their websites. These sites are responsible for more than 82% of all applications I have received. I will list them here in the order I applied to their site and was accepted: Award Sites, Awards Jungle, Website Awards, A+ Awards, The Award Zone, The Award Gallery and Millennium Awards. Next are the individuals who helped me the most personally. I have been very lucky to meet many wonderful people who were generous with their friendship and their answers to my continual questions. There isn't enough bandwidth on the whole Internet to thank everyone who has ever helped me. This list is for those who made the largest impact on my awards program and how it works now: Morgan Ravenstone, Stelios Stavrinides, Richard Berends, Don Chisholm, Brian Lee, TnT Emerson, Steve English, Paul Davies, Romeo Sin, Michel Nag, Philipp T. Eirich, Nikica Atlagic, Peter Shulman, TinyRay Grier, Rhonda Serong and Karen Lyster. While I often help others with grammar and spelling I also need help myself at times. Thank you to Enrique Sacerio-Gari for checking my work so carefully and gracefully. It just wouldn't have worked the same without these people. I owe them all a debt of gratitude. Last, but far from least are the many applicants who work hard to make our Internet community a home. There would be no program without beautiful sites made by talented people to earn them. I thank you all. Return to Page 1 of this Article Top of page.