Hi Bjankuloski06. Thank you for this report and apologies for the long delay in our review. We appreciate the effort put into reporting and we value your reflections and learnings. The report is approved and we would appreciate your responses to our comments/questions below.
- It is interesting to read how your shift in focus from quantity to quality impacted different aspects of the contest. It sounds like the group thinks there is a direct correlation between reducing prizes for prolific contestants and the decrease in number of participants. This is not necessarily a bad thing. As you said, another way to address participation is to do targeted outreach aimed at photography and cultural heritage groups. We would also recommend analyzing what areas have the least amount of monument's covered and targeted outreach in those places as well.
- Was the group able to do any follow-up with the 15 new participants?
- 8% of images used is a good outcome. Did you do any specific outreach/activities to support this?
@AWang (WMF): Not any specific activities as such, but by the efforts of editors individually. Although we do plan to have an edit-a-thon devoted to inserting images from other contests.
- Thank you for reporting on the success documenting cave churches. It's stories like these that help us, and others, understand the value of WLM!
- Considering the relatively low number of participants and images, we would encourage the organizing team to think carefully about the planned activities and prizes in following years. What do you think motivates participants and judges? What events are of the most value? Could those funds be used in other ways, such as a photo expedition to a location that has a concentration of un-documented monuments or a photography skills workshop? It's great that you're reflecting and adapting every year and we hope you continue to think creatively!
@AWang (WMF): That is precisely what we have concluded. At WLM15 we tried the approach to focus more on quality, rather than quantity, but we ended up not getting the undocumented places/objects we want. That is why we have abstained from photographic competitions this year, and have introduced a twofold solution to the problem: (1) more expeditions of various kinds, i.e. natural, cultural etc. and (2) Photohunts, that engage particular individuals with plans for visit and costs, and then they are approved and reimbursed. They have to submit the plan and it has to be approved, i.e. that those places need covering and that it is cost-effective. Of course, they have to also satisfy certain norms like proper descriptions, categorisation and usage in articles. You can read more about our various expeditions and the Photohunts on the our 2016 request page. Cheers! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)