[Christian Tismer Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:47:48PM +0100]
holger krekel wrote:
...
yes, that's right. Nevertheless, my concern was more how close 26.5 is to 30 because it's possible that there are "too many" projects with points higher than 26.5 ... maybe i didn't use the right mathematical terms or so :-)
Yup. Logarithmic scale would only count if this were an absolute measure. Since it appears to be relative, logs or anything else don't count, just the number of competitors above our score counts.
I forwarded the results to Mark Achtman from MPIIB, who seems to have some experience with EU funding, and his reaction was *very* positive, "a real good chance".
So I'll repeat this here, "a real good chance" and hope for the best.
I like to think so, too.
p.s.: The analysis of that evaluation doesn't suggest that we had too experienced reviewers.
hmmm, I can't conclude this from the evaluation grid. It's only two pages, actually just one page with a evaluation table. The 6 sentences judging the different aspects of our proposal seem to be quite to the point. I don't know how you could do better in *one* sentence :-)
That state of the art argument is rather vague and misplaced, since we are going beyond state of the art in certain areas.
Well, they mostly reiterate what we are saying in the proposal IIRC so they can't be wrong ... on a "pure" theoretical side we are not pushing the envelope too much last time i checked :-) cheers, holger