Has anyone else noticed that the voting functionality has been live this entire time even though voting officially ended like, a week and a half ago? So now even if someone tried to rectify the contest botchery, there's really no way for anyone to know what the true results of the contest would be if they were actually based on something intelligent like results based on percentages rather than just strictly on number of votes (which is how it should've been done given the fact that some entries were up for WEEKS longer than others). There's no accurate record to even look back on.

I should've known this thing was jacked when, upon finding out about it, the first information I was given read:

* Submissions will be accepted September 25th through October 16th, 2006.
* Each of our 4 sites will publish up to 3 submissions per day (maximum of 60 per site), from October 6th through October 31st.
* The first round of voting ends on October 29th at midnight. Readers vote throughout the month, evaluating each entry as it is posted.

RRRRRRTTTT!!! (that's the sound of brakes screeching) Please reread that - Entries published through the 31st, voting ends on the 29th. Hmmmm. It hurts my brain just trying to figure out what about that makes sense.

* AT's editors tally the votes and select 10 finalists from around the country, who will be revealed 2 per day on each site. Finalists have until November 3rd to refine their profile and to send in 5 new and better pictures, and (optional) video/interview.

---- He did say 10 finalists, right? Okay. Cool. 10 finalists. ---

* Readers and judges will review these top 12 finalisRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!!!!

...Huh?

ts from November 6th through November 10th. Although the readers will not be voting per se, they will be encouraged to comment and assess each submission. The judges will review and take into account these comments when making their final decision. As the comments are public, the process remains very transparent.

------ Transparent like a steel door.-----

* Judges determine the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place winners, irrespective of geography.
* Winners will be revealed at an AT event on November 16th.

...yeah, enjoy your party.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!

FOURTEEN finalists.

that's fourteen, ladies 'n' gentlemen.

...until they change their minds again tomorrow.

I don't think that I or most of AT's readers are mean & elitist. I think that we are all getting worked up because of the information that was provided in regard to the contest rules in the beginning.

I also found the discrepancies in the original rules strange i.e. the voting ending on 10/29 even though submissions were going up through 10/31; 10 finalists being selected and then the next sentence explaining how 12 finalists would be reviewed. I think that a copy editor just needed to read through it to catch the mistakes before it got posted.

The other thing that gets people upset is the way the finalists were chosen. Yes, this is the internet and there is no way of getting around the fact that a person can repeatedly vote "insta-finalist" for the same entry. Hey, all you have to do is trash your cookies, use different web browsers, list your entry on your blog, etc. The possibilities are endless. BUT, what the problem seems to be is that the finalists were chosen only on the # of "insta-finalist" votes they received. It didn't take into consideration how many "no way, jose" votes the entry received as well. If that's the case, why have the opportunity to vote at different levels? Why not just either vote for an entry or not? Also, the longer an entry was up, the longer it had to receive "insta" votes. One way to level the playing field is to take a percentage. OK, I know, it's still not a perfect system, but hey, a little better.

I know that many people will campaign for their entry. If I entered, I know I would! I believe AT even encouraged it...more hits to the website, more happy advertisers, more $$$. That's understandable. I'm in marketing so I get it. I just think that AT could have done a better job at explaining the rules (or at least keeping it consistent).