APPENDIX: IPHLA 2012 INTERVIEWS

Victor Manta, PWO, AIJP

PWO - Interview with Mr. Wolfgang Maassen

Chairman of the Organization Committee of IPHLA 2012, AIJP President  

• The IPHLA 2012 was huge! How did you manage such an impressive task?

This was possible only because we started our preparations very timely, i.e. two years ago, we had a refined time management and a perfect cooperation with a professionally working team that we could rely on. I mention especially my colleagues in my own publishing house, but also the full-time employees in the central office of the Federation of German Philatelists (BDPh). In the course of time, particularly when IPHLA had started, more and more volunteers and supporters joined hands, so that a multitude of little stones formed a real mosaic.

• For the first time after over 10 years the philatelic websites were admitted again to compete along with other exhibits in an official philatelic exhibition.
  
  
• What explains this change?
  
  To put it in a nut shell: the far advanced revolution in the methods and possibilities of publication and communication which for many years now has reached authors, societies and associations and brought about a radical change – not only in firms and professional publishing houses.
  
  
• Which were the organizations / persons – if any that contributed to this radical change in attitude and practice?
  
  From the very beginning, AIJP and FEPA have supported the opening of IPHLA for digital media, especially Dr. Giancarlo Morolli who is a member of the Administrative Board of both associations and who very closely cooperated with me as the FEPA coordinator. Already in 2010, the BDPh laid down the basis by formulating completely new regulations.
  
  
• Were you satisfied with the level of participation of philatelic webmasters in IPHLA 2012?
  
  If I interpret statistics correctly, 12% of the entries were websites. Personally I had expected a higher percentage, but when you add group 2 (static digital media) you come close to 20%. That is not too bad for a first try, but can certainly be improved in the future.
  
  
• How have you found satisfactory the set of regulations adopted by the BDPh in what concerns the judging of philatelic websites? What would you add/change first of all for a future websites competition?
  
  That is a question which the IPHLA jurors will be able to answer in detail more competently that I can. However, there is one observation that I can make on the basis of the feedback I received shortly after IPHLA: One can still more refine the regulations in the direction of objectively measurable judging criteria, and on the other side the number of sub-groups can be reduced to make applications easier for a prospective exhibitor. In this way you can avoid the frequent regrouping of entries which became necessary at IPHLA because numerous exhibitors did not understand the difference between sub-groups 3A/B and 3D/E.
  
  
• There were many philatelic websites presented by philatelic associations, societies and organizations and only a few submitted by individual stamp collectors.
  
  At this point I do not fully agree with you. Of the 67 websites that applied for competition (the total number of competitive entries was about 580), 31 were entered by individual authors, and further 36 by clubs, study groups and firms. That means: the relationship among the 67 websites was almost 50 : 50.
  
  
• Have you an explanation for this disparity?
  Nevertheless I want to answer your question why there were not more individual authors. I can only offer a supposition: Preliminary publicity was primarily aimed at associations in Europe and around the world in the hope that on their own websites and in their printed media they might pass the provided information on to collectors. As far as I could observe, this was unfortunately not the case everywhere. Quite a few associations did not publish anything or anything worthwhile in their own media, while in other cases there were even “national commissioners” who contacted individual authors and motivated them. On the internet the well-known “snowball system” apparently did not work effectively, for authors are not necessarily acquainted with each other, particularly if they work in different fields of philately.
  
  
• The number of websites covering topical philately was even smaller, despite the fact that they represent the majority of websites. Do you know why?
  I do not know if things are as you present them, I lack the information from around the world, particularly for countries in South America, Africa and the Arab world. I leave a statement on the issue to experts who have the appropriate insight.
  
  
• Is it a good idea to mix in the same category the websites of societies, individual stamp collectors and commercial sites?
  This question was the subject of hot discussions years ago in reference to printed literature, and in those days the decision went in favour of the final product without making any difference between book, catalogue or revue. The experience gathered until today is quite positive, because even a private author can learn and use professional methods of layout and design. Differences in financial resources explain differences in the quality of the production, but here again this applies to firms as well as to clubs or individual authors. For this reason I do not see any problem in applying to websites a procedure which over the years has proved effective. In any case, the regulations purposely applied at IPHLA worked that way, and entries were judged by their contents and by technical criteria.
  
  
• Are you satisfied with your collaboration with the IPHLA 2012 jurors of philatelic websites? What do you think about their level of competence, readiness and collaboration with the exhibitors?
  
  First of all: I have never met at a national specialized literature exhibition a jury with such a high percentage of foreign jurors as was the case at IPHLA. I must admit that this was a common wish, because we wanted to have the best European jurors who are really experts of literature. From my point of view, the collaboration with the jury and all jurors was excellent. One explanation is that I have known the majority of them for many decades. As far as their cooperation with the exhibitors is concerned, I may add that each exhibitor had the chance on the last day of IPHLA, after the palmarès, of speaking to the jurors who had judged them. This opportunity was widely used.
  
  
• Should further competitions of philatelic websites be organized in the future? If the answer is positive, by whom and how often?
  
  Naturally the answer to your first question can only be “YES” from my point of view. Of course I know that a long way lies ahead. I do not know if exhibitors will always have the necessary patience and tolerance. But also in the literature class there are changes – even if only after many years. We might as well expect them here. I do not know who will organize them in the future. Of course it can only be wished for that the FIP will finally admit digital media to international competitions, but this is one of the “Thick boards that have to be drilled”. The more positive, useful and transferable experience is gathered on the national and continental level, the sooner change will take place there, even if it may still take years. But what do a few years mean in view of the 150 years of philatelic literature that we celebrated in Mainz ?

As far as the frequency is concerned, let my point out that this is not the least a matter of costs. In the USA , in Canada and New Zealand , there are literature exhibitions more often – even if at a lower scale and limited to works in English. At IPHLA, all European languages – and these are quite a few – were admitted. This means a polyglot jury team from different countries, and it means increased requirements as to the experts. Specialized exhibition of the size of IPHLA cannot be organized every year, and not in every country either. Germany is and will remain a literature-enthusiastic country. Thus we have already laid the financial foundation stone for another IPHLA in four or five years.

• Please add your comments. Thank you for your great work!

An extensive report in form of a comprehensive documentary will follow next year. As regards the internet and digital communication, a few points are already previsible that will considerably facilitate the work of the organizing committee in the future. As an example I refer to the possibility of putting the complete calendar of and booking for events on the internet, which makes preliminary work – including the catalogue – considerably easier. In five years, you would no longer provide a dual communication system (e-mail and postal letter) but publish information exclusively in a digital way on a website although I am convinced that the printed media will still play an important role even then. Without any doubt, the behaviour of the users is towards dualism. The problem of the internet is the amount of information, combined with a lack of structure and clarity, and they increase instead of decrease. A second increasing problem of numerous websites is (and remains) a growing decline of quality, which you can observe and follow – to give but one concrete example – when visiting the philatelic terms at wikipedia. Last but not least questions of the copyright resp. the massive non-respect of the copyright have become a matter that philately, and that includes jurors, has to deal with much more than in the past.
So I see many chances and possibilities for the future, but it seems important to define quality standards and implement them in many, many fields. In this respect, IPHLA was important as well, further discussions are required now, because – and this is true even in our digitalized world – you can only learn from experience.

wm/21.11.12
Translation: Rainer von Scharpen 2012-11-21

PWO - Interview with Mr. Peter Fischer

President of the Jury of IPHLA 2012  

• How was it for you to lead a jury that included specialists in philatelic websites?
  
  I think that for the moment there are no real specialists for philatelic websites yet. The reason: The FIP has regulations dating from 1985 exclusively for printed media, and the FEPA has no regulations for judging literature. And last but not least: The regulations of the German Federation BDPh providing rules for judging digital media date from 2011, so there was really hardly any time to gain experience and to specialize.
  
  
• Is the judging of philatelic websites much more different than judging other philatelic literature exhibits?
  
  In view of the technical parameters, judging of philatelic websites is considerably different from judging printed media. And the better a judge is acquainted with the technique of a computer, the more qualified his judgment will be.
  
  
• Who were the judges who judged the philatelic websites. Which was their experience in this?
  
  All jurors had to judge printed as well as digital media. Regarding their practical experience cf. question # 1.
  
  
• What is your opinion or that of your experts in what concerns the set of regulations adopted by the BDPh for judging of philatelic websites? What would you add/change/improve for future websites competitions?
  
  The regulations of the BDPh governing the judging of philatelic websites should certainly be reviewed. But it is still premature for any definitive conclusions as to the appropriateness of the present regulations. One problem is that websites differ considerably as to their nature and that the individual sites have aims quite different one from another.
  
  
• Have the jury members communicated with the exhibitors whose websites they judged, this before, during or after judging them? If positive, for which reasons and how often? Were their e-mail addresses or other contact information easily accessible?
  
  I can furnish no numbers in this regard. But I think the e-mail addresses of the jurors could easily be obtained from the organizing committee.
  
  
• The exhibit evaluation forms should help the participants in the improvement of their websites. As an example, I sent to you an excerpt from my certificate, for the Exhibit No. 3.B.21. From the form you can read (excerpt):
  2. Originality, significance, depth of research / etc.: 20 from 40 points
  4. Presentation: 6 from 10 points
  I cannot infer from these scores where could I improve my website, and I really don't know how to improve it by 100% (2.) and by 66% (4.). For this reason may I ask you to explain me what/how should I do better.
  
  The same question could be asked by any exhibitor of printed media, for there the information on the evaluation sheet for the exhibitor is quite similar. Questions about how to improve one's exhibit can as a rule best be answered in a direct discussion with the juror, and in Germany each exhibitor is given this opportunity at the end of the exhibition.
  # 2. By the choice of his theme, the contents, the author has taken a first decision regarding the criteria. Is the theme really new, and has it got a more or less far-reaching importance for philately and postal history as a whole? The cancellations of a small town e.g. are less important than the cancellations of a whole country etc.
  
  
• Should competitions of philatelic websites be organized in the future? If positive, by whom and how often?
  
  I think that in the future websites should be part of literature competitions as well. The BDPh is planning to organize exhibitions like the IPHLA every four or five years. It is difficult to esteem right now to what extent future exhibitions will include digital media in the competition. Of course their participation can only be wished for.
  
  
• Would you participate, as a presiding judge, in a future competition of websites?
  
  Yes, of course, but I would like to point out that fundamentally I am not specialized in the field. However, this is true for the majority of the present literature judges.
  
  
• Please add your comments. Thank you!
  
  11/27/2012  

PWO - MIssed Interview with Mr. Francis Kiddle

IPHLA 2012, Philatelic judge, Team Leader team 3  

• How was it for you to judge philatelic websites, as compared to other kind of philatelic exhibits?
  
  
• Was your previous experience with the judging of philatelic websites useful for this competition?
  
  
• How have you found the set of regulations adopted by the BDPh in what concerns the judging of philatelic websites? What would you add/change for a future websites competition?
  
  
• There were many philatelic websites presented by philatelic associations, societies and organizations and a few presented by individual stamp collectors.
• Have you an explanation for this disparity?
• The number of websites covering the topical philately was even smaller, despite the fact that they represent the majority of websites. Do you know why?
• Is it a good idea to mix in the same category the websites of societies, individual stamp collectors and commercial sites?
  
  
• Have you communicated with the exhibitors whose websites you judged before awarding them? If positive, for which reasons and how often?
  
  
• Will the exhibit evaluation forms help the participants in the improvement of their websites?
  
  
• Should competitions of philatelic websites be organized in the future? If positive, by whom and how often?
  
  
• Would you participate as judge in a future competition of websites?
  
  
• Please add your comments. Thank you for all!

VM / Feb.10, 2013. Lower Manhattan, New York City, USA