PrehistoricFlorida Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 One of the main arguments is that a certain group of fossils is being denied the chance to win. I can see two objections; firstly, you'd have to split it further if an indentifiable group of fossils wasn't winning; animalia always beats out plant fossils etc. What really seems pointless about this is that there is nothing stopping any type from winning; the award simply acknowledges which is thought by fellow members to be the best find; if invertebrates aren't winning, it's because they aren't thought of as the best find. Secondly, it detracts from the award; if it's supposed to be the best fossil of the month, then it's much less meaningful if the fossil is acknowledged as the best within a very specific context, where almost everyone is a winner. The argument that not everybody gets a chance to collect the things with popular-appeal is a little specious; few of us have the opportunity to collect the really spectacular fossils at all, simply as you are unable to find fossils that appeal to other members, doesn't mean that we should lower the bar, or institute a lowered para-bar. Best post on this whole thread. www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacialerratic Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Thobern, I think you have a valid argument, and had some similar thoughts prior to my vote --- it's supposed to be The Best Found. I was thankful just to be able to enter a fossil for Nov. There-in lies my reason for voting to split. As an almost strictly nonvert-fossil hunter, I know there's some interesting and rare stuff out there -- but, when measured up against a killer Meg tooth, ect., why would I want to enter a tiny, but rare, Blastoid? Other than personal satisfaction, which will wear thin after time, what's the point in entering something will garner little appreciation? I would think (and I may be wrong) that by splitting into 2 categories (vert & non-vert) there may be more participation from those of us who find interesting, but not spectacular, fossils. Which is to say, I'm more likely to put up my Conodont teeth against a trilobite than a Meg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinus Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 One of the main arguments is that a certain group of fossils is being denied the chance to win. I can see two objections; firstly, you'd have to split it further if an indentifiable group of fossils wasn't winning; animalia always beats out plant fossils etc. What really seems pointless about this is that there is nothing stopping any type from winning; the award simply acknowledges which is thought by fellow members to be the best find; if invertebrates aren't winning, it's because they aren't thought of as the best find. Secondly, it detracts from the award; if it's supposed to be the best fossil of the month, then it's much less meaningful if the fossil is acknowledged as the best within a very specific context, where almost everyone is a winner. The argument that not everybody gets a chance to collect the things with popular-appeal is a little specious; few of us have the opportunity to collect the really spectacular fossils at all, simply as you are unable to find fossils that appeal to other members, doesn't mean that we should lower the bar, or institute a lowered para-bar. I like this argument and will vote to keep it as one. Also I want to point out that a Meg only won once and therefore picking on the shark teeth people is not valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Keep in mind that, what ever route this goes, the production will have to be manageable by the two or three volunteers who put it together. It is a case of too little being preferable to too much; this is why the feedback is invaluable. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleecan Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 After much consideration... I have just deleted my vote, remain neutral and sit on the fence as I will let the majority vote the outcome.... this is great site and I do not like to see conflict... with the limited resources, the volunteers, Administrators and Moderators have done an excellent job keeping this site viable..... PL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Full disclosure: I am completely neutral on this. Now, I would like to add a thought for discussion: Preservation and rarity are certainly two requisites for the status as "best" fossil. There are some astoundingly beautiful and vanishingly rare non-vert fossils found by our members; some of these might not get a second glance by collectors from outside the particular field, whereas some of the better known and more charismatic fossils are well known to more collectors. Is there any way to reconcile this built-in bias? The contest itself creates an accumulation of eye candy every month, no matter what specimen wins; this is one goal accomplished. Another goal is to foster friendly competition, whereby no one looses and we all win; the rules must be deemed fair for this result to come about. Would one combined poll with multiple votes allowed per member help the latter goal while fostering the sense of inclusion? "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicranurus Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 (edited) Full disclosure: I am completely neutral on this. Now, I would like to add a thought for discussion: Preservation and rarity are certainly two requisites for the status as "best" fossil. There are some astoundingly beautiful and vanishingly rare non-vert fossils found by our members; some of these might not get a second glance by collectors from outside the particular field, whereas some of the better known and more charismatic fossils are well known to more collectors. Is there any way to reconcile this built-in bias? The contest itself creates an accumulation of eye candy every month, no matter what specimen wins; this is one goal accomplished. Another goal is to foster friendly competition, whereby no one looses and we all win; the rules must be deemed fair for this result to come about. Would one combined poll with multiple votes allowed per member help the latter goal while fostering the sense of inclusion? What if there would be 2 categories? Rarest fossil of the month AND Best preserved fossil of the month??? Edited December 20, 2009 by Dicranurus "It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living." -Sir David Attenborough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 There aren't any real criteria given to voters, the voter is free to decide what they think constites the best find. If we don't like how people are voting, is it then right to effectively subvert their decision by switching the criteria, so that our criteria (rarity) is then recognised? I suggest that you simply include a reminder in each post suggesting that rarity factor into the decision. That way, all truly rare finds will have a chance, but voters are still free to exercise their judgement. I should also add that the "eye-candy" fossils are in themselves extremely rare (e.g. a high-quality, 6 7/16" meg), it's just that there is a selection bias as many of our more serious members hunt for them. Incidentally, can anyone list the FOTM's from the last year or so; it would be intersting to see the extent to which the perceived bias matches up with the results. I've seen another forum in which individual fossils are rated on a series of criteria. If we instituted a similar system, it might work better; instead of choosing a single favourite, each fossil is rated on a series of criteria and the fossil with the highest averages wins. Although it seems likely that this system will encourage different biases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 What if there would be 2 categories? Rarest fossil of the month AND Best preserved fossil of the month??? We would still have the same basic problem, times two; a lack of esoteric knowledge beyond each collector's sphere. My feeling is that, since there are so many non-vert species, widespread appreciation for some of them is hard to come by (no matter how special they are). "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placoderms Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I have to admit I felt bad reading after this thread... I voted for the split because I also believe more people will be willing to share their finds even if they don't live in an area where vertebrates are found. I do believe it will take away from the award, but who cares? It is just an award from a fossil website... For me the real benefit from collecting fossils is not to boost your ego but to have fun with friends, share knowledge and if lucky enough advance human knowledge by finding a creature no one has ever seen before. Statistically speaking we have a better chance of finding a new invertebrate because this covers 95% of all animal species... Man,I thought I saw a lot of politics at work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacialerratic Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Being a new member, I didn't realize that this had been running for only 4 months. There is a good representation of all categories in the past contests. It's a good contest as it stands. Without complicating things too much for the Mods, would it be easier to do a year in review posting, with the top 3 from each month, and maybe a run-off between the monthly winners for the fossil of the year? That would keep it to one a month, except for Jan., and foster a sense of inclusion. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicranurus Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 (edited) I should also add that the "eye-candy" fossils are in themselves extremely rare (e.g. a high-quality, 6 7/16" meg), This only my personal opinion: Megalodon is not rare species but big meg teeth are very imposing fossils and that is reason why they probably always beat rare trilobite species'. It dosen't matter how big trilobite are. There are probably millions of Meg teeth in museums and private collections all over the world. They are really nice and expensive fossils but not rare. I also have a couple nice meg teeth from US but I dont think they are rare in any valid criteria. Edited December 20, 2009 by Dicranurus "It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living." -Sir David Attenborough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 We're not voting for the species, but the fossils themselves. A tooth of that size and quality is very rare indeed. Even an example of a common species, as an individual instance of that species, can be as rare as anything else, considering size, location, preservation (last month's winner certainly ticked two of those boexes). Why are people so hung up about rarity; there are a lot of rare fossils that aren't as desirable, impressive or interesting as more common finds. Rarity should only be one of many criteria. I think, however, that with only 4 F'sOTM, we don't have a statistically valid basis for complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrehistoricFlorida Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 (edited) there may be more participation from those of us who find interesting, but not spectacular, fossils. The award is for the best find among the members in a given month. I am a vertebrate collector, but I can also appreciate a spectacular invertebrate fossil. However, regardless of whether the categories are split or not, it should still be spectacular fossil that wins. Let's not celebrate mediocrity. Edited December 21, 2009 by PrehistoricFlorida www.PrehistoricFlorida.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_turkey Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 i say spit. because people are more likely to vote for a vert fossil instade of an invert even if the invert is the find of the centery. And that puts people like me who are in places that just have invert fossils to collect. and i have very few vert fossils youc could count them on your hand. so split please. -Frozen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THobern Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 i say spit. because people are more likely to vote for a vert fossil instade of an invert even if the invert is the find of the centery. And that puts people like me who are in places that just have invert fossils to collect. and i have very few vert fossils youc could count them on your hand. so split please. -Frozen What are we actually basing this on? Why do we think that members won't acknowledge an invertebrate find? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramo Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Are we going to have to split the prize money also? For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun. -Aldo Leopold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edd Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Money?! " We're all puppets, I'm just a puppet who can see the strings. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Money?! Surrrre there's money...what kind of cheap contest do you think this is? You could win a few bucks, bones, clams or sand dollars, depending on your entry. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I voted to keep it together also. I follow along the same lines as what Thobern and PrehistoricFlorida have said. The contest has had only a few invertebrate fossils entered in the past and they did get several votes. There is always a chance that someone with one could win if someone found one that was worthy. I can picture a sweet crinoid or an amazing trilobite winning the award. Separated the contest will lose something and that is value. With the competition as is the fossil that the members deem worthy will always be a great fossil. If we change it then the vert competition will stay about the same but an invert competition will have months that there are few competitors or decent fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I agree with the KISS principle. The contest really hasn't been going on long enough to make a "split" decision. There is no reason an invert couldn't win. One of these days, someone will post that killer trilobite or crinoid or unbelievable shell or whatever and it could win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placoderms Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I don't know if anyone else has this experience but the vertebrate fossils I find are only part of a complete animal and therefore require little prep time (at most gluing bones back together). Now, A rare trilobite like the Spathacalymene in my avatar was sent out to be prepped and took 2 months to get it back, that was fast! But not fast enough to enter the contest. I am sure people who collect complete vertebrate fossils have an even longer wait for prep time. I don't think this is a problem we need solve but is a perspective I didn't see expressed yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Menser Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Gotta jump in here and say from the viewpoint of someone who is in area where impressive invert fossils are rare as opposed to verts (I'm in Big Meg country)and my only enty into this contest was a shark tooth... I would vote in a heartbeat for a really great TB (especially California TB's), Crab, or Athropod over a Meg. Be true to the reality you create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I think that perhaps making a change to allow finished prepped fossils to enter in the month they are finished would make things more fair since many inverts take time to prep. This would greatly increase the change of one winning fossil of the month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haddy Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) Here's an off-the-wall thought -- do we really need to vote on Best Fossil at all? Why? It's not like there's a monetary award that we're competing for. This is a volunteer-run site; do they really need to take up their time working out rules and complaints on this topic? Maybe we just need to have a "Fossil of the Month" thread each month, opened towards the end of the month. Each of us who has a worthy entry could post it there so that there would be a nice collection to view. For example, last month I had a really cool find; this month, nada, so I wouldn't bother this month. I didn't vote. If there must be a division, I like the shark teeth vs other stuff split, but even better would be a shark teeth division, a dino division, a big mammal division, an "other vert" division, and an invertibrate division, a plant division (and let's not forget the best prep entries) with semi-finals and an ultimate championship. However, I think that's probably more work than it merits.... Edited December 22, 2009 by Haddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts