I am intriqued by the Rhizome jury voting system. It has great merits and
certain flaws. And in order for this system to work the flaws are an issue
and have to be addressed accordingly.

I think most members are reluctant to discuss this because they are part of
the problem. The fact they didn't look at all the proposals is the problem.

I truly believe if you are going to adjudicate an artist on his/her/their
proposal you have to inspect the entire project they are presenting. That is
not being done in this process.

Other artists on this list have said as much with much more humility. Is the
lead-in the problem? The description isn't sexy enough to further more
investigation?

Print requires less than 21 words or less to capture attention. A typical
sound-bite is 20 seconds. A movie less than 10 minutes. A web-site less than
15 seconds. That is the typical attention span based on marketing studies,
(and btw journalistic practices.)

One would think the "lead-in" is the problem. I seriously doubt that and I
think someone should argue otherwise.

Most of us are web-savvy enough, curious enough to have hit counters and if
the hits aren't coming in where they should then we would know. We know
precisely the geographics, the monitor resolutions, the browsers people are
using, we know people are looking at our sites from a gmail, yahoo, hotmail
account and from a mailing list.

Ideally, of all people voting we should have the same amount of hits to our
well crafted sites, doncha think?

Personally, I don't think the random "weighted" system works. A software
system might work much better but then you are dealing with something
altogether different but at least you are dealing with earnestness.