Signed hackathon results anyone can recompute and verify
Every hackathon platform converged on the same features then stopped at the judging. The biggest one cannot weight its criteria. The ones that advertise score normalization do not document how it works. None of them lets you recompute a result, so a ranking is something you trust because the platform says so. DOGFOOD is a 72-hour event with one product in it, a submission and judging platform…
The DOGFOOD hackathon introduced a hackathon platform that allows anyone to recompute and verify results. The platform separates the judging core as an isolated pure-Python module and integrates it separately into the Django app. Judges score each criterion on a 1 to 5 scale, and the organizer sets a weight for each criterion. The platform combines weighted criteria into a composite score that stays on the 1 to 5 scale.
Judges' leniency is removed using an additive model (mean plus a project effect plus a judge bias), and ranking is determined by the bias-removed quality after shrinking it toward the mean by n over n plus k. A standalone verify.py script recomputes the ranking from raw scores, checks the hash, and verifies the signature. The platform outputs the raw scores, rubric, method, parameters, code commit, and ranking, hashed and signed with an Ed25519 key generated at first boot.
The result is signed and can be re-computed, turning the statement "we normalized the scores" into "here is the record, recompute it yourself." The platform reports an uncertainty band next to every score, indicating statistical ties in most of the order. The design, math, and verification were checked by the author, and the acceptance suite and judging tests pass green.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
