Yeah, exactly - just meant it was just kind of a bad luck that they wound up going head-to-head like that since they're both great and presumably "split the vote" somewhat due to appealing to a similar audience, what with being edits of the same source material.
I still don't see the relevance of this statement. It's a subjective poll. One edit, the most popular, wins.
It appeared that both of the top finalists drew supporters who fed off of the competive nature of two similar edits going head to head.
That should be viewed as a good thing. More people voted last month than the previous two months combined. In that respect, I don't believe they split the vote at all. They doubled the votes.
DigModiFicaTion makes a very good point when they say that we got to see the power of one vote. It was actually two votes.
It was set to be an interesting competition because one edit would have the support of many established editors who were involved in the project to a degree, as well as, people who thought it was a genius idea.
The other was a very popular edit outside of the forum that could be a wild card drawing an unlimited amount of votes from those established fans, as well as, people who were impressed by it's technical execution.
That's what makes it fun. You never actually know. There is nothing wrong with a good competition.
What is wrong, is when sore people who have been members for a month make statements that are presented as "objective" stating that the "obviously" superior edit lost. According to whom? Them?
That's certainly not productive.
That's certainly not objective.
That's certainly not accurate.
In my "subjective" opinion, the edit that was likely the best, only got four votes.