How Judging Actually Works

No affiliate links on this site, and no competition is named here as good or bad.

An entry does not meet an admirer. It meets somebody with a scoring sheet, working through a pile, against criteria they did not write.

Almost everything useful about writing entries follows from that. For teams that want a concrete workplace example, this resource.

The sequence

Administrative check. Eligibility, category, completeness — mechanical, and frequently done by staff rather than judges. For independent background reading, see Clio Awards, included here as background rather than as an endorsement.

First-pass scoring. Each entry read once and scored per criterion, often by two judges independently.

Moderation. Where scores differ substantially, the entry is discussed or read by a third.

Shortlisting. A cut, either at a score threshold or by taking a fixed number per category.

And final selection, which may involve a panel discussion, an interview or a site visit — and which is where non-score factors enter, openly in some programmes and quietly in others — including how the panel handles knowing entrants.

What a judge is doing

Awarding points, not forming an impression.

A judge with a criterion worth twenty points and a paragraph in front of them is asking whether that paragraph earns twelve or sixteen — not whether the entrant seems impressive.

Which means an entry that makes the scoring easy scores better than one of equal merit that does not. Signposted sections, one criterion per section, evidence in the same paragraph as the claim.

This is not a trick. It is the difference between a judge finding the answer and a judge hunting for it, and the second frequently scores lower for reasons nobody records.

The volume problem

Judges read many entries, usually in a compressed period, usually alongside their actual work.

Which affects the reading. Attention is highest at the start of a document and at the start of each section. Long preambles are read fastest and remembered least.

A first sentence stating the answer — "Response times fell from nine hours to under two" — is read even by somebody skimming, and everything after it is supporting detail rather than a build-up.

Entries structured as narratives with the point at the end are structured for a reader who does not exist.

What judges are given

Frequently a guidance note describing what a high, medium and low answer looks like per criterion.

Where a programme publishes it, it is the most useful document available and several will send it on request.

And a scoring sheet, which is what the entry is actually being read against.

Neither is secret in most programmes, and entrants rarely ask.

Who the judges are

Usually practitioners, sometimes academics, occasionally sponsors.

Which matters for how much explanation to include. A panel of specialists does not need the sector explained; a mixed panel does, and the programme's published list tells you which. That has its own page.

Most judge voluntarily, in evenings, and the goodwill is real. An entry that respects their time is not merely polite — it scores better, for the reasons above.

What separates the top of a category

Rarely the quality of the work, at the shortlist stage.

By that point the entries are broadly comparable — they are all from people who did something worth entering. What separates them is which one evidenced it.

Two organisations with similar results, one supplying figures with sources and one supplying assertions, will score several points apart per criterion, and across five criteria that is the decision.

Which is why the evidence page is the most consequential on this site, and why the work that determines a result happened months before the entry was written.

Scores nobody sees

Most programmes do not publish scores, and entrants read that as secrecy.

It is usually practical. Scores are working notes, judges disagree, and publishing them invites disputes the organiser has no capacity to handle.

Feedback is a different question and is available from more programmes than entrants assume — on request, after the decision, and phrased as impressions rather than as marks.

Where judging is not scored

Some programmes decide by discussion rather than by scoring sheet.

Legitimate, and it changes the entry. A panel arguing toward a decision responds to a compelling case rather than to points, and the narrative advice that fails against a scoring sheet works better here.

The published criteria usually reveal which. Numbered criteria with weightings mean scoring; a general statement of what the programme seeks means discussion.

Where it is unclear, ask — and where the programme will not say, that is itself informative.

Two judges, two scores

Independent scoring by two people is standard, and their scores differ more than entrants imagine.

Not because judging is arbitrary — because a criterion admits interpretation, and two competent readers weigh the same paragraph differently.

Moderation resolves it, usually by discussion or a third reader.

What this means for an entry: an answer that only works on one reading is a gamble. An answer that satisfies any reasonable reading of the criterion scores consistently from both, and consistency is what survives moderation.

Which is another argument for answering the question plainly rather than cleverly.

What an entry cannot recover from

Three things, and they are worth knowing so that effort goes elsewhere.

A criterion left effectively unanswered, which loses its whole weight.

A figure a judge disbelieves, which discounts everything around it.

And an entry in the wrong category, scored against criteria it was not written for.

None is recoverable by better writing in the other sections, which is why the twenty minutes before writing matter more than the days spent writing.

The short version

• An entry meets somebody with a scoring sheet working through a pile, not an admirer of your work
• The sequence is administrative check, independent first-pass scoring, moderation, shortlisting, then final selection
• A judge awards points per criterion rather than forming an impression, so an entry that makes scoring easy scores better
• Attention is highest at the start of a document and of each section, so state the answer first
• Entries structured as narratives with the point at the end are written for a reader who does not exist
• Judges' guidance notes and scoring sheets are frequently available on request and are rarely asked for