Project Evaluation Criteria
Judges score each project on five criteria. Each criterion is scored from 0 to 3, then weighted to produce a final score out of 100.
Criteria Overview
| Criterion | Weight | What Judges Look For |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Complexity | 30% | The hack should be technically impressive for a 24-hour project. Frameworks, APIs, algorithms, interesting languages, and a functioning demo can add to the technical difficulty. |
| Usefulness | 30% | The hack should have the potential to be useful in everyday life and be intuitive and easy to use. |
| Originality | 20% | The hack should be unique and interesting, ranging from a new twist on existing ideas to something completely outlandish. |
| Design | 15% | The hack should look and work beautifully. The closer it feels to a professional-grade application, the better. |
| Presentation | 5% | The demo should clearly explain the problem and solution and showcase the team’s understanding of the project’s impact. |
Rubric Scale by Criterion
| Criteria | 0 (No Credit) | 1 (Developing) | 2 (Effective) | 3 (Outstanding) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Complexity (30%) | The project is not interactive or doesn't utilize code (Ex: Wix, Google Sites, Figma). | Uses some frameworks, APIs, or algorithms but is not technically difficult. Could be built within 24 hours. | Uses difficult frameworks, APIs, or algorithms. Would be challenging to build in 24 hours. | Uses remarkably complex frameworks, APIs, or algorithms. Judges find it incredible to have been built in 24 hours. |
| Usefulness (30%) | Very little or no application. Target users are unclear. Difficult to use or unintuitive. | Addresses real-world problems but may not be used often by the target audience. | Addresses a relevant issue for a clear target audience; users could incorporate it into their lifestyle. | Addresses a unique, key need for a clear target audience; highly intuitive and exciting to use. |
| Originality (20%) | Similar solutions already exist. | Adds a twist on an existing idea but remains closely based on it. | Novel or adds an exciting twist that makes it better than the original. | Groundbreaking and unlike anything judges have seen; stands out among projects. |
| Design (15%) | Lacks consistency and looks unpolished. | Inconsistent structure but uses some clear aesthetics. | Consistent structure and clear aesthetics; uses colors and fonts well. | Cohesive, professional-grade aesthetics that enrich the user experience. |
| Presentation (5%) | Video is not present. | Shows the project in action but doesn’t explain the mission; unengaging. | Explains how it works and intended use in an engaging, clear way. | Goes beyond explanation to connect outcomes; extremely engaging and charismatic. |
How Scores Are Used
The score report sent to teams includes an overall score and per-criterion scores, all scaled out of 100. The overall score determines Round 1 ranking and advancement to live presentations.
To reduce strict-versus-lenient judge effects and keep scoring fair across judging pools, raw Round 1 scores are normalized using our scoring model.