I'm fine with how the Doomworld Cacowards are processed. Not based off scores or an automated system, but a small dedicated group of suitable people to discuss amongst themselves, coming to a consensus about the 'top 10' releases & any runner ups and finally writing a small piece on each selection.
The thing is though do we really produce enough content so as to justify a Cacowards equivallent? We probably only get about 20 proper maps a year (not sure how much we should be counting stuff from the steam workshop generation, but chances are 95% of that stuff wouldn't make the cut anyway). So it'd be pretty easy to guess what maps would win, even for people not familar with the user content scene (They can always skim though the highest rated or most downloaded maps on these review sites, or even skim though each years' content).
Plus we only have like 1 or 2 mods a year if we're lucky, depending on your definition of mod.
Like it's been said, if there'd be a small number of dedicated people making the decisions, we'd just end up with those who already review the maps and then you might as well look at the scores again.
Then again it'd be pretty interesting if Forge, Mikko, and some third guy not from either site "sat down" and decided on the top 5 or some similarly small number maps from each year. In terms of mods, probably the number 1 mod of the year should be sufficient, however it should be flexible so if there are 2 similarly good mods they should both be talked about (or no mods mentioned if the only mods are crap).
people change with time and someone's opinion on mapping nowadays might (and most likely will) be different from the same person's opinion on mapping six months, one year, five years ago. and noone ever re-adjusts the scores in the older reviews according to their current standards, so you really can't compare two reviews written by the same person on a fair basis if they have been written too far apart in time
I agree. The "highest standard" rose over the years as mappers continually redefined high detail levels and conceptual grandness. If the standard changes, but the actual numerical scale is constant, then you have no choice but to change the score you'd give a map over time. Then people started the trend of having adequate (but consistent and polished) detail as opposed to uber detail, such that a map that had lots of intricate detail would get a similar score to a map that technically speaking had less detail. Things change.
It was probably around 2011 that the "classic" resurgence started to happen? I'm not saying It Lives was the exact turning point, but I can see that some people would have played it, rubbed their hands together and thought "That's it, time to pack up. It's not worth investing the amount of time required to match or exceed this detail level". It's also around that time that you yourself seemed to make the switch to lower detailed design.
Interestingly Gambini himself has since said something to the effect of "It took me a long time to realize that you don't need high details to make a map look good, only enough so as to make the place believable/not to break the immersion".
