RSC Review Question

[mandabears]

Why are people giving 5 star reviews for RSC recipes that "look good" but they have not tried? I was under the impression that reviews should be posted on recipes already been tried, not recipes that "look good" or "sound delicious". Am I wrong or delusional about this??? I always review recipes that I have tried and also do appreciate all reviews done on my recipes, good or bad., but do not review recipes that sound interesting or look good.

[Mary at Food.com]

I am going to let Kathy chime in here since she handles processing.

[Chocolatl]

The rules do state this: " Reviews that clearly indicate that someone has not made or tasted the dish (i.e. “This looks good!” or “I can’t wait to make this!” or “I would definitely eat this!”) will not qualify for points."

Remember that in these sponsored contests, most of the reviews are by people who are visiting here for the first time and will never be back again. They're just trying for a win for that recipe.

[Kathy at Food.com]

As Chocolatl posted, these reviews are discounted in the judging process. If we rejected these types of reviews before the contest ends, it would only encourage people resubmit their review and pretend they made the recipe, thus encouraging dishonest reviews.

This occurs in every contest, and it's something we addressed in the forum post about the contest. It's referred to in the section titled Special Guest Judge and Choose Our Winners:

http://www.food.com/bb/viewtopic.zsp?p=5821427

[:(]

I think the judging for the cash award should be done on each recipe regardless of what kind of reviews it got.
People may have their friends post "looks good" reviews, but they will also go further, I think. and have them say they made it, and beyond that, even post photos.
I have seen someone play photo tag and post a photo I had already seen out on the internet. And it was not their photo. I have seen photos posted to more than one recipe and the photographer vehemently claim it was not the same photo, but if you magnified and looked at it pixel by pixel, there is no way that the photo was different. Even if there were 2 pictures of the same thing, how could a person get it to match on the pixel level? Just a little movement of the camera would change it.
There is no way to authenticate a review or a photo, but a judge evaluating them personally, without review or photo, seems to me to be the only fair way.
Otherwise $5000 corrupts and the contest integrity is lost.
j/s

[Chocolatl]

Sue Lau wrote:
I think the judging for the cash award should be done on each recipe regardless of what kind of reviews it got.
People may have their friends post "looks good" reviews, but they will also go further, I think. and have them say they made it, and beyond that, even post photos.
I have seen someone play photo tag and post a photo I had already seen out on the internet. And it was not their photo. I have seen photos posted to more than one recipe and the photographer vehemently claim it was not the same photo, but if you magnified and looked at it pixel by pixel, there is no way that the photo was different. Even if there were 2 pictures of the same thing, how could a person get it to match on the pixel level? Just a little movement of the camera would change it.
There is no way to authenticate a review or a photo, but a judge evaluating them personally, without review or photo, seems to me to be the only fair way.
Otherwise $5000 corrupts and the contest integrity is lost.
j/s

The grand and runner up prizes ARE chosen without regard to reviews.

[:(]

Chocolatl wrote:

Sue Lau wrote:
I think the judging for the cash award should be done on each recipe regardless of what kind of reviews it got.
People may have their friends post "looks good" reviews, but they will also go further, I think. and have them say they made it, and beyond that, even post photos.
I have seen someone play photo tag and post a photo I had already seen out on the internet. And it was not their photo. I have seen photos posted to more than one recipe and the photographer vehemently claim it was not the same photo, but if you magnified and looked at it pixel by pixel, there is no way that the photo was different. Even if there were 2 pictures of the same thing, how could a person get it to match on the pixel level? Just a little movement of the camera would change it.
There is no way to authenticate a review or a photo, but a judge evaluating them personally, without review or photo, seems to me to be the only fair way.
Otherwise $5000 corrupts and the contest integrity is lost.
j/s

The grand and runner up prizes ARE chosen without regard to reviews.

So- you are saying that a recipe that has received zero reviews can still become the grand prize winner?

This is what I read in the contest rules:

'Finalist Selection. Following the Reviewing Period, a panel of judges selected by Sponsor will evaluate all Submissions and select ten (10) finalists (each, a “Finalist”) based on the following Judging Criteria: (a) 40% based on the Public Reviewing Score; (b) 30% based on the creative execution; and (c) 30% based on presentation and clarity of recipe. The Finalists will be selected on or about March 11, 2013 (the “Finalist Selection Period”). The odds of being selected depend on the number of Submissions received and the performance of each Entrant. In the event of a tie, ties will be broken based on the creativity criterion score and if a tie still remains, the tie will be broken based on the flavor criterion score.

So, mathematically, a recipe with no reviews will score no more than 60 percent. And if 40 percent of the playing field has family or friends that review recipes with "wonderful", etc., being ambiguous in that they neither imply or deny that the recipe was in fact, made. will cause any recipe without such reviews to have zero chance.
So without "sounds" or "looks"in the review, it promotes the recipe even if it perhaps really was not made. And even if it says it was made, does anyone actually believe that for $5000 someone might not lie about reviews?
I mean, I am not saying anyone has. I am saying the potential is there.
I guess that what I am saying is that using the honor system when large cash awards are offered might be hoping for too much. I have seen people on this website lie about reviews and/or photos when there was no cash involved at all. It's sad, but, there it is.
And I am not saying this for my sake because I never have felt I would ever have a chance to win. I play for the sake of the RSC contest, which I have always enjoyed. But if I did feel I had a chance, I would NOT have entered my recipes here, but on the HVR website, where a similar contest was being run concurrent.
And there, entries are based solely on merit, no public reviewing score involved for that cash prize.

[Chocolatl]

Okay, I missed that.
But in a sponsored contest, the sponsor gets to make the rules.

And in regular RSC, it's ONLY reviews that count. So the best recipe might never be tried. That's just the way the game is played.