TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Screening process
Project administrators sent all Top 80 lists for Round 1 of the project to a group of screeners for approval. The purpose of the screening process was to screen out lists that demonstrated insufficient knowledge or care, or that didn't match the intent of the project according to the consensus of participants.
We had five screeners this time, all longtime HOH posters. Three of them were involved in screening or administering the defensemen and goaltenders projects: EagleBelfour, who screened both projects and was a non-participant in this project; reckoning, who screened both projects and participated in this project; and seventieslord, who was a screener for the defenseman project and co-administrator for the goaltenders project, and who participated in this project. In addition, MXD and Sturminator screened lists for the first time; both would also participate.
Every submitted list (including those of the administrators and participating screeners) was screened by between three and five screeners, and at least three votes from a disinterested screener were required to be accepted. Screeners who were also participants were required to submit their own lists before screening any other lists.
The screeners did not know the identity of the list submitter. Their verdict was given solely on the contents of the list. Project administrators TheDevilMadeMe and tarheelhockey knew the identity of the submitters of the lists, and for that reason did not participate in the screening process.
We received lists from 24 posters in total. One list was rejected in its entirety for being a non-original list, one list was rejected for carelessness and later submitted and approved, and another was sent back for questioning and later officially approved. The rest were approved, though several made requested minor changes before being finalized. In the end, we had lists from 23 different posters.
Screening Criteria and Details
Screeners were given the first 14 submitted lists to look at, so they could compare them to each other. They were then given groups of more lists as they were sent in.
There are two basic reasons to reject a list - undue bias and lack of care.
Screeners were to reject lists that, in their opinion, were heavily slanted toward or against certain eras or that failed to consider the full scope of hockey history. No lists were rejected for this reason.
Screeners were to reject lists that, in their opinion, showed a lack of care or knowledge. They could use the 2008 Top 100 Players list as a reference, but weren't limited to it. Two lists were rejected for this reason and one was questioned.
Screeners were originally instructed to use the HOH Top 100 Players list created in 2008 as a guide, as had been done in both the defensemen and goaltenders project. Instead, they decided to use the first 14 submitted lists as a guide. If a top 80 list did not include a center listed in the top 60 of all but 1 or 2 of the first 14 lists, screeners flagged the center, and requested that administrators asked the list maker if it was an intentional omission. In several cases, the omission was unintentional and the listmaker resubmitted the list. In other cases, the omission was intentional and we accepted the list as-is.
Additionally, screeners were concerned that there was confusion about whether certain multi-positional players counted as centers or not. If a list maker included a player who was not considered a center by the majority (such as Red Kelly), he was informed. If a list maker did not include players considered centers by the majority (and included on the majority of the lists), he was also informed. The most common missing players to be flagged for this reason were Frank Foyston, Mickey MacKay, Bernie Morris. Vaclav Nedomansky, and Henrik Zetterberg.
Five lists listed the same player twice. Two lists were 81 names long and one list was 79 names long due to numbering errors. These were all corrected.
Project administrators sent all Top 80 lists for Round 1 of the project to a group of screeners for approval. The purpose of the screening process was to screen out lists that demonstrated insufficient knowledge or care, or that didn't match the intent of the project according to the consensus of participants.
We had five screeners this time, all longtime HOH posters. Three of them were involved in screening or administering the defensemen and goaltenders projects: EagleBelfour, who screened both projects and was a non-participant in this project; reckoning, who screened both projects and participated in this project; and seventieslord, who was a screener for the defenseman project and co-administrator for the goaltenders project, and who participated in this project. In addition, MXD and Sturminator screened lists for the first time; both would also participate.
Every submitted list (including those of the administrators and participating screeners) was screened by between three and five screeners, and at least three votes from a disinterested screener were required to be accepted. Screeners who were also participants were required to submit their own lists before screening any other lists.
The screeners did not know the identity of the list submitter. Their verdict was given solely on the contents of the list. Project administrators TheDevilMadeMe and tarheelhockey knew the identity of the submitters of the lists, and for that reason did not participate in the screening process.
We received lists from 24 posters in total. One list was rejected in its entirety for being a non-original list, one list was rejected for carelessness and later submitted and approved, and another was sent back for questioning and later officially approved. The rest were approved, though several made requested minor changes before being finalized. In the end, we had lists from 23 different posters.
Screening Criteria and Details
Screeners were given the first 14 submitted lists to look at, so they could compare them to each other. They were then given groups of more lists as they were sent in.
There are two basic reasons to reject a list - undue bias and lack of care.
Screeners were to reject lists that, in their opinion, were heavily slanted toward or against certain eras or that failed to consider the full scope of hockey history. No lists were rejected for this reason.
Screeners were to reject lists that, in their opinion, showed a lack of care or knowledge. They could use the 2008 Top 100 Players list as a reference, but weren't limited to it. Two lists were rejected for this reason and one was questioned.
Screeners were originally instructed to use the HOH Top 100 Players list created in 2008 as a guide, as had been done in both the defensemen and goaltenders project. Instead, they decided to use the first 14 submitted lists as a guide. If a top 80 list did not include a center listed in the top 60 of all but 1 or 2 of the first 14 lists, screeners flagged the center, and requested that administrators asked the list maker if it was an intentional omission. In several cases, the omission was unintentional and the listmaker resubmitted the list. In other cases, the omission was intentional and we accepted the list as-is.
Additionally, screeners were concerned that there was confusion about whether certain multi-positional players counted as centers or not. If a list maker included a player who was not considered a center by the majority (such as Red Kelly), he was informed. If a list maker did not include players considered centers by the majority (and included on the majority of the lists), he was also informed. The most common missing players to be flagged for this reason were Frank Foyston, Mickey MacKay, Bernie Morris. Vaclav Nedomansky, and Henrik Zetterberg.
Five lists listed the same player twice. Two lists were 81 names long and one list was 79 names long due to numbering errors. These were all corrected.
Last edited:
