# Judgegrid, full text > Assign science fair judges to projects with conflict of interest checks, category matching and even loads, then print judge route sheets. Free, no sign up. Every public page of https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev, as Markdown, in sitemap order. Built from the exported pages at build time. The short index is https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/llms.txt. --- # Science fair judge assignment tool, free, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > Assign science fair judges to projects with conflict of interest checks, category matching and even loads, then print judge route sheets. Free, no sign up. ## Assign science fair judges without the spreadsheet all-nighter Paste your projects and your volunteer judges, say how many judges each project needs and who may not judge whom, and Judgegrid builds the assignment: every conflict kept, every judge under their maximum, loads even, experts in their categories. Any project it cannot fully judge is named with the reason. Then print a route sheet for every judge, with table numbers and times. ### Project and judge details never leave your browser. Projects, student initials, judges and their schools stay on this device. Judgegrid has no server to send them to: the assignment runs on this page, your fair is saved in this browser only, and there is no account and no upload. Student names are never required; a project code and title are enough. Save a backup file whenever you like. ### How it works 1. **Paste the projects.** One per row: a project code, title, category, division, table or board number, room, school, and optional student initials and special flags. A header row is read if there is one. 2. **Paste the judges.** Name, school or employer, the categories they can judge, expertise tags, conflicts, the hours they are there, and the most projects they will take. 3. **Set the rules.** Judges per project, projects per judge, whether a category match is required or preferred, no two judges from one school on a panel, and rounds and time slots if you run them. 4. **Assign.** Hard rules are never broken silently: a project that cannot get every judge it needs is listed with the reason, judge by judge. 5. **Review and print.** Drag a judge to another project and the conflict flags update as you move. Lock what you are sure of, rebalance the rest, and print route sheets and judge lists. #### Conflicts kept, and shown A judge never lands on their own school's project, a project they named, or a student they know. The conflict audit lists every declared conflict and confirms it was kept. #### Loads you can defend Every judge stays at or under the maximum you set, and the assigner evens out the rest, so nobody judges twelve projects while another judges three. #### Sheets that match the floor Route sheets in table order or time order, the judge list for every project, the master grid and the check-in list all come from the same assignment, so nothing drifts when you move a judge. ### Fairness is your call Judgegrid does not score projects and does not decide who is a good judge. The tool only applies the rules you enter, and it tells you plainly what it could not do. No rubric text is shipped: scoring packets carry the criteria you type. ### Guides - [How to assign judges to science fair projects](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/) - [Science fair judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/) - [How many judges per science fair project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/) - [Science fair judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/) - [Category and expertise matching for judges](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/) - [Hackathon judging rotations and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/) - [Judge assignment guides](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/) ### Free to use Every feature is free with no sign up: any number of projects and judges, rounds and time slots, saved drafts, every printout and CSV. Try it with the sample fair, then paste your own. --- # Assign judges to science fair projects, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > Paste projects and judges, set judges per project, conflicts and maximums, assign with conflict checks, drag to adjust, and print judge route sheets. This page is the app itself. It runs in the browser; there is no text to extract. --- # Science fair judging guides: how assignment works, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > How a judge assignment tool reads a fair: hard rules, conflicts of interest, loads, category matching, the reasons a project is short of judges, and guides. ## Science fair judging guides: how assignment works Assigning judges answers one question: which judges should see which projects, so that every project gets the panel it needs, nobody judges a project they are too close to, and nobody is worked twice as hard as the next person? This page explains how Judgegrid reads your rules, what it balances and how to read what it tells you. The guides below take one job each, with worked examples computed by the [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/). ### Guides - [How to assign judges to science fair projects](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/): Seven steps from a registration list to route sheets, with the sample fair of 36 projects and 12 judges assigned by the tool and a dated comparison of judging tools. - [Science fair judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/): The four kinds of conflict worth collecting, how each becomes a rule, and how the conflict audit shows every one was kept. - [How many judges per science fair project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/): The usual floor and range, the capacity check, and the sample fair assigned with two, three and four judges per project. - [Science fair judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/): What a route sheet shows, walking order, time slots, and one judge's printed route from the sample fair with ten minute slots. - [Category and expertise matching for judges](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/): Required, preferred or off: what each category setting costs in panels, with the sample fair assigned both ways, and how expertise tags break ties. - [Hackathon judging rotations and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/): Expo style judging in rotations: visits per team, four minute slots, the slot arithmetic and a worked rotation for 18 teams and 6 judges. ### Hard rules, never broken silently These rules are hard, and the assigner keeps each one on every seat it fills: a judge never judges a project they have a conflict with; a judge never judges outside their categories when category match is set to required; a judge is only placed in a slot inside their availability windows; a judge never takes more projects than their maximum; a judge is in one place at a time; no judge sees one project twice; and, when the rule is on, no two judges from one school sit on the same panel. None is ever broken silently: when the rules leave a seat that no judge can take, the seat stays empty and the project is listed with the reason for every judge. Your own hand moves are different. You may drag a judge anywhere, and a move that breaks a rule is allowed but flagged in red on the grid and listed on the conflict audit, because you may know something the tool does not. ### What the assigner balances Once the hard rules hold, the assigner weighs several things against each other, in cost points. Loads: each judge costs 2 times the square of their load, so twelve projects on one judge cost far more than six on two, and each project a judge falls below the minimum costs 40. Matching: when category match is preferred, each visit outside a judge's categories costs 25, and each visit where none of the judge's expertise tags matches costs 3. Spread: when two judges from one school are allowed on a panel, each such pair costs 20. Walking: each table step between a judge's consecutive visits costs 1. In a rebalance, each visit moved from where it was costs 8. An empty seat costs 1,000,000, more than any mix of the rest, so no balance is ever bought with an empty seat. ### Seats, panels and rounds Every project needs a panel of judges in every round: with three judges per project and one round, a fair of forty projects has 120 seats. Each seat is one visit on a judge's route sheet. With rounds, each round has its own panel, and a judge never sees the same project in two rounds. With time slots, each visit also gets a time: a judge makes one visit at a time, never two visits whose times overlap (even in different rounds, and the slot maker refuses a run of slots that would overlap), and a project hosts at most the number of judges at once that you allow, which is one for the classic walk round and the full panel when judges visit together. ### How the assignment is built Locked visits are placed first. Then the assigner works out the largest number of seats the judges could fill at all under the conflicts, categories, maximums and availability, using a maximum flow calculation, and starts from that fill. A search then moves judges between seats, swaps judges between projects and moves visits between slots, 220 tries per seat, never fewer than 40,000 or more than 400,000, keeping any change that lowers the cost and, early on, some that raise it, so it can escape a dead end. Every change it tries keeps every hard rule, and it never gives up a filled seat for a better balance. The search is seeded, so the same fair gives the same assignment every time. It runs in a background worker on the page. At the end, every warning and every reason is worked out again from the final assignment, not carried over from the search. ### Why a project is short of judges When a seat stays empty, every judge not already on the panel is checked, and each is given the first of these reasons that applies, on screen and on the printed sheets: - **Conflict** The judge has a conflict of interest with the project: it is from their own school (when that rule is on), from a school they named, it is a project they named, or it has a student they said they know. - **Category** Category match is required and the judge does not judge the project's category. - **Not available** Time slots are on and none of the judge's availability windows covers a slot in the project's round. - **Already on this project** The judge already judges this project, in this round or another. No judge sees one project twice. - **Same school on the panel** No two judges from one school may sit on a panel, and a judge from the same school is already on it. - **At maximum** The judge already has as many projects as their maximum allows. - **No free slot** The judge could take the project, but every slot they are available for is taken, either by their other visits or because the project already has as many judges at once as the rules allow. If no arrangement at all could fill more seats under your rules, the assigner says so, because the maximum flow calculation proves it. Otherwise it says how many more seats the rules might allow. ### Reviewing by hand The review grid shows one row per judge and, with time slots on, one column per slot. Drag a visit to another judge or another slot, or choose from the lists on each visit, and the conflict flags update while you move: a conflict of interest, a category mismatch, a judge over their maximum or double booked, a project with too many judges at once. Lock the visits you are sure of, then rebalance the rest: the assigner starts from your current grid and moves as few visits as it can. ### Pasting projects and judges Copy from any spreadsheet. With a header row, columns are matched by name: project or code, title, category, division, table or board, room, school, students and flags for projects; name, school, categories, expertise, conflict schools, conflict projects, conflict students, available and max for judges. Without a header, columns are read in that order. Categories, schools and divisions become lists you pick from, so a typing slip cannot switch off a rule. Pasting the same rows twice adds nothing: rows already in the list are reported and skipped. ### Where the fair is kept In this browser, and nowhere else. There is no server: the assignment runs on the page and the fair is saved in the browser's own storage. A backup file moves it to another computer. See the [privacy page](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/privacy/). Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # How to assign judges to science fair projects, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > Assign science fair judges in seven steps: count the seats, collect conflicts, set maximums, match categories, assign, review and print route sheets. ## How to assign judges to science fair projects To assign judges to science fair projects, count the judge visits you need (projects times judges per project), collect each judge's categories, school, hours, maximum and conflicts, then place judges so that nobody sees a project they are too close to, nobody goes over their maximum, and the work is shared evenly. Do the placing with a tool that checks every conflict for you, then review the result by hand and print a route sheet for each judge. ### Seven steps from a registration list to route sheets 1. **Count the seats.** Multiply the number of projects by the judges each needs, and by the number of rounds. That is how many judge visits the day has to hold. 2. **Collect every judge's details before the day.** Ask each judge for their school or employer, the categories they can judge, the hours they are there, the most projects they will take, and any project or student they know. 3. **Check the capacity.** Add up the judges' maximums. If the total is below the seat count, some panels will be short whatever you do, so recruit or raise maximums now. 4. **Decide the hard rules.** Choose whether a category match is required or only preferred, and whether two judges from one school may sit on a panel. 5. **Assign.** Paste the projects and judges into the assigner and run it. Every conflict and maximum is kept, and any seat it cannot fill is listed with the reason. 6. **Review by hand.** Look over the grid, move anyone you know should be elsewhere, and lock the visits you are sure of before rebalancing the rest. 7. **Print and hand out.** Print a route sheet per judge, the judge list per project for the floor, and the check-in list for the desk. ### Why the arithmetic comes first Most judging days go wrong before anyone arrives, because the numbers never added up. A fair of 36 projects with 3 judges each needs 108 judge visits. If each of 12 volunteers will take at most 10 projects, the judges can cover 120 visits between them: enough, with a little room. Take away two judges and the same fair is short before a single conflict is counted. The category judging guide of one large regional fair (listed below) organises judges into teams of two to four, each seeing eight to twelve projects at about eight to ten minutes each, which is a useful check on what a maximum should be. ### Worked example: the sample fair The [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/) ships with an invented sample fair: 36 projects from four schools in 6 categories, and 12 volunteer judges, each with two categories, a school or employer and a maximum of 10. The rules ask for 3 judges per project, a minimum of 6 projects per judge, category match preferred, no judge on their own school's project and no two judges from one school or employer on a panel. The assigner filled 108 of the 108 seats. Every judge ended with between 8 and 10 projects. 4 visits went to a judge outside their categories. Some were unavoidable: with the one school rule and the declared conflicts, no arrangement that keeps every judge in their own categories fills more than 106 of the 108 seats. 21 visits matched a judge's expertise tags to the project. The independent check found 0 broken rules. The search ran 40,000 steps and, like every run, gives the same answer for the same fair and seed. ### What to check before you print Read the grid judge by judge. Look for anyone you know should not be with a particular project for a reason nobody entered, a judge whose projects are spread across two rooms, and panels that are all newcomers. Move them by drag or from the lists; a move that breaks a rule is allowed but stays flagged in red. Then lock what you are happy with and rebalance the rest, which keeps your locks and moves as few other visits as it can. ### Common mistakes - Collecting conflicts on the morning of the fair, when the schedule is already printed. - Counting judges, not judge visits, and discovering at noon that the panels are short. - Giving the most experienced judges twice the load of everyone else, so they rush the last projects. - Keeping the only copy of the schedule in one person's head or inbox. - Asking for student names you do not need; a project code does the job. ### What the judging tools cost These are the public prices and free plans of the tools organisers mention most, read on the dates shown below. | Tool | Price | Free option | Assigning judges | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | zFairs | USD 1,000 a year for a contest of 100 participants or less; USD 3,000 a year for a regional or state licence | No free plan | Lists judging assignments and scoring; says nothing about conflicts of interest (read 27 September 2026) | | ScoreJudge | Free for 3 judges and 5 entries in one competition; Plus USD 48 a month; Pro USD 80 a month | 3 judges, 5 entries, 1 competition | No plan mentions automatic assignment or conflicts of interest (read 27 September 2026) | | HackHQ | Free for 3 judges and 10 submissions; USD 199 or USD 599 per event | 3 judges, 10 submissions | Three assignment modes on paid plans: all judges, per judge, judging rooms (read 27 September 2026) | | A shared spreadsheet | No cost | Always | By hand; conflicts and loads are checked by eye (read 27 September 2026) | ### Sources - [Category Judging Guide](https://science-fair.org/judges-3/category-judges/category-judging-guide/), Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship (science-fair.org), written for its 11 March 2021 judging day. At least two judges per project for award eligibility, teams of two to four judges each seeing eight to twelve projects in one category, about eight to ten minutes per project, and conflicts reported at the check-in desk before interviews. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Judging at Your Fair](https://www.societyforscience.org/isef/affiliated-fair-network/judging-at-your-fair/), Society for Science, affiliated fair network pages (undated page, copyright 2026). Fairs should have procedures in place to remove any potential conflict of interest, and should tell students roughly how many judging interviews to expect. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Pricing](https://zfairs.com/pricing), zFairs. Yearly licences per contest, no free plan; lists judging assignments and scoring, with nothing said about conflicts of interest. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Pricing](https://scorejudge.com/pricing/), ScoreJudge. A free plan of three judges and five entries in one competition, paid plans by the month; no plan mentions automatic assignment or conflicts of interest. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Pricing](https://hackhq.io/pricing), HackHQ. A free plan of three judges and ten submissions, paid plans per event, and three judge assignment modes: all judges, per judge and judging rooms. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. ### Frequently asked questions **How long does it take to assign judges by hand?** For a school fair of forty projects it is an evening with a spreadsheet; for a regional fair with a hundred judges it is days, and the conflicts are the part that goes wrong. An assigner does the arithmetic in under a second and leaves you the review. **Should judges pick their own projects?** Letting judges choose tends to leave popular categories crowded and hard projects unvisited. Let judges tell you their categories and conflicts, then assign, and let them swap by asking the desk. **What if a judge cancels on the morning of the fair?** Set their maximum to zero or remove them, lock the visits that have already happened, and rebalance. The other judges take the empty seats where the rules allow, and anything still unfilled is listed with the reason. **Do I need student names?** No. A project code, title, category and table number are enough. Student initials help only when a judge has declared that they know a student. ### More guides - [Science fair judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/) - [How many judges per science fair project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/) - [Science fair judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/) - [Category and expertise matching for judges](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/) - [Hackathon judging rotations and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/) Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # Science fair judge conflicts of interest, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > Which science fair judge conflicts of interest to collect, how to keep judges off their own school's projects, and how to show every conflict was kept. ## Science fair judge conflicts of interest A science fair judge has a conflict of interest with a project from their own school, a project they mentored, or a student they know or are related to. Collect those on the judge sign up form, turn each into a rule that keeps the judge off the project, check every assignment against them, and keep a way to report a conflict found at the table so the desk can swap the judge. ### The four kinds of conflict worth collecting Fair networks ask affiliated fairs to have procedures that remove potential conflicts of interest, and one large regional fair's judging guide asks judges who discover a conflict at preview time to report it to the desk before interviews start. Both are listed below. In practice four kinds cover almost everything: - **Own school.** A teacher, parent volunteer or alumnus judging their own school's projects. One switch keeps every judge off every project from their school. - **Other schools.** A judge whose partner teaches elsewhere, or who coaches a club at another school. The judge lists the schools. - **Named projects.** A project the judge mentored, supplied equipment for, or saw at an earlier fair. The judge lists project codes. - **Students they know.** A niece, a neighbour, a child from their own class. The judge gives initials; the tool matches them to the initials on the project, so full names are never needed. A full name a judge types anyway still matches the same initials, and a judge paste names any entry that matches no project. ### Worked example: the conflicts in the sample fair The sample fair in the [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/) has 16 declared conflicts across its judges, counting each judge's own school once. Between them they rule out 57 of the 432 possible judge and project pairs. Dana Ortiz teaches at a school with nine entries, so the own school rule takes 9 projects off her list. Owen Fraser named one school, which also rules out 9. Helen Adeyemi named one student by initials, which rules out exactly 1 project. The assigner still filled 108 of 108 seats, and the conflict audit sheet reports 0 visits that break a declared conflict. When a coordinator drags Dana onto one of her own school's projects, the move is allowed but flagged at once, with the message "Dana Ortiz has a conflict with P101: own school." and the same line on the audit sheet, until it is moved back or the flag is accepted on purpose. ### Collecting conflicts without collecting too much Ask for the school or employer, the schools they must not judge, any project codes they are connected to once projects are published, and the initials of any entrant they know. Do not ask for student names or for the nature of a relationship: the rule only needs to know that a conflict exists. Everything stays on the coordinator's computer; nothing is uploaded. ### Showing that every conflict was kept The conflict audit sheet lists each judge, the conflicts they declared, how many projects those conflicts rule out, and any visit that breaks one. Print it for the fair director or keep it with the results. It is also the fastest answer to a parent who asks whether the judge on their child's project knew the family. ### Common mistakes - Asking about conflicts only in the judge briefing, after the schedule is printed. - Treating an employer as unrelated when a sibling of the entrant works there. - Letting two judges from the same school sit on one panel, so their views count twice. - Swapping a judge on the day without checking the replacement's conflicts. - Writing full student names into a shared spreadsheet when initials would do. ### When a conflict turns up at the table It will happen. Have the judge move on without scoring, tell the desk, and in the assigner remove that visit, lock what has already happened and rebalance. The empty seat goes to a judge who is free, has room under their maximum and has no conflict with the project, and anything still unfilled is listed with the reason. See the [step by step assignment guide](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/) for the rest of the day. ### Sources - [Judging at Your Fair](https://www.societyforscience.org/isef/affiliated-fair-network/judging-at-your-fair/), Society for Science, affiliated fair network pages (undated page, copyright 2026). Fairs should have procedures in place to remove any potential conflict of interest, and should tell students roughly how many judging interviews to expect. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Category Judging Guide](https://science-fair.org/judges-3/category-judges/category-judging-guide/), Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship (science-fair.org), written for its 11 March 2021 judging day. At least two judges per project for award eligibility, teams of two to four judges each seeing eight to twelve projects in one category, about eight to ten minutes per project, and conflicts reported at the check-in desk before interviews. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. ### Frequently asked questions **What counts as a conflict of interest for a science fair judge?** Anything that would make a reasonable entrant doubt the judge's independence: judging a project from the school where they teach or their child studies, a project they mentored, or a student they know or are related to. Your fair's own rules decide the exact list. **Should judges declare conflicts before the fair or on the day?** Before, on the volunteer form, so the schedule can avoid them. Keep a way to report one on the day too: judges often recognise a student only at the table, and the desk can then swap them. **Is a teacher allowed to judge at a fair their school enters?** Usually yes, as long as they never judge their own school's projects. Turn on the own school rule and the assigner keeps them away from every project their school entered. **Can the tool find conflicts nobody declared?** No. It keeps the conflicts you enter and nothing else. The conflict audit says so on the page, so nobody mistakes it for a background check. ### More guides - [How to assign judges to science fair projects](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/) - [How many judges per science fair project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/) - [Science fair judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/) - [Category and expertise matching for judges](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/) - [Hackathon judging rotations and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/) Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # How many judges per science fair project, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > How many judges each science fair project needs, how many projects one judge can see, and how to check that your volunteers can cover every panel. ## How many judges per science fair project Plan for at least two judges per science fair project and three where you can, with each judge seeing six to ten projects. Then check the arithmetic: projects times judges per project must not exceed the sum of your judges' maximums. If it does, some panels will be short however cleverly you assign, so recruit more judges or lower the judges per project before the day. ### The floor and the usual range One large regional fair's category judging guide, listed below, requires that every project eligible for a category award be evaluated by at least two judges, and organises judges into teams of two to four that each see eight to twelve projects at about eight to ten minutes per project. A hackathon organiser guide from the same list recommends that every project be seen by at least three different judges. Fair networks also ask fairs to tell students roughly how many interviews to expect, which is exactly the judges per project number. ### The capacity check Every project in every round needs its panel. With P projects, J judges per project and R rounds, the day holds P times J times R judge visits. Each judge can take up to their maximum. Add the maximums: if the total is smaller than the visits, the fair is short before any conflict is counted. Conflicts, categories and time windows only make it tighter, so leave a margin of ten to twenty percent. ### Worked example: two, three and four judges per project The sample fair in the [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/) has 36 projects and 12 judges with a maximum of 10 each, so the judges can take 120 visits between them. The table shows the assigner's result for each panel size with everything else unchanged. | Judges per project | Seats | Filled | Projects short | Judge loads | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 2 | 72 | 72 | 0 | 6 each | | 3 | 108 | 108 | 0 | 8 to 10 | | 4 | 144 | 120 | 20 | 10 each | With four judges per project the fair needs 144 visits and the judges can give 120, so 24 seats stay empty across 20 projects. The assigner fills 120 and says that no arrangement can fill more under these rules, because its maximum flow check proves the ceiling. The fix is not a cleverer schedule: it is more judges, higher maximums or smaller panels. ### How many projects per judge Work back from the time you have. A two hour judging block at eight to ten minutes per interview, plus a minute or two of walking, gives room for about eight to twelve visits; build in a break and six to ten is kinder. Set the fair maximum to that, and give individual judges a lower maximum if they are only there for part of the session. The minimum per judge is a target, not a rule: the assigner tries to give every judge at least that many, and says who fell short. ### Common mistakes - Recruiting judges by headcount instead of by visits needed. - Giving panels in one category four judges and panels in another two, then comparing their scores. - Setting one fair wide maximum for judges who arrive at different times. - Forgetting the second round when counting visits. - Discovering a short panel at noon instead of from the plan the week before. For keeping judges in their own categories while you fill the panels, see [category and expertise matching](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/). ### Sources - [Category Judging Guide](https://science-fair.org/judges-3/category-judges/category-judging-guide/), Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship (science-fair.org), written for its 11 March 2021 judging day. At least two judges per project for award eligibility, teams of two to four judges each seeing eight to twelve projects in one category, about eight to ten minutes per project, and conflicts reported at the check-in desk before interviews. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Judging Plan](https://guide.mlh.com/general-information/judging-and-submissions/judging-plan), Major League Hacking, Hackathon Organizer Guide, 2026 season. Recommends science fair style expo judging at tables, each project seen by at least three judges, about four minutes per judge visit including travel, and staggering projects across judges. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Judging at Your Fair](https://www.societyforscience.org/isef/affiliated-fair-network/judging-at-your-fair/), Society for Science, affiliated fair network pages (undated page, copyright 2026). Fairs should have procedures in place to remove any potential conflict of interest, and should tell students roughly how many judging interviews to expect. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. ### Frequently asked questions **What is the minimum number of judges per project?** Two is a common floor, so no result rests on one person's view; one large regional fair makes two evaluations a condition for a category award. Three is common where volunteers allow, and hackathon guides often suggest at least three visits per team. **How many projects can one judge see?** At eight to ten minutes an interview plus walking, a judge sees six to ten projects in a two hour session without rushing. Set each judge's maximum to what they can do well, not what the schedule needs. **Should every project get the same number of judges?** Yes, within a round. Uneven panels make scores hard to compare. If you cannot cover every panel, the assigner lists exactly which projects are short so you can recruit for those categories. **What if I have more judges than I need?** Lower the maximum, raise the judges per project, or add a second round for the finalists. The assigner spreads the load evenly, so extra judges mean lighter routes, not idle volunteers. ### More guides - [How to assign judges to science fair projects](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/) - [Science fair judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/) - [Science fair judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/) - [Category and expertise matching for judges](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/) - [Hackathon judging rotations and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/) Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # Science fair judge route sheets and schedules, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > What a science fair judge route sheet should show, how to build a judging schedule with time slots, and how to keep each judge's walk short. ## Science fair judge route sheets and schedules A judge route sheet lists one judge's projects in the order to visit them, with the table number, room and time of each, and a box to tick. Build the order from the floor plan so each judge walks a short loop, give every visit a time slot if students must be at their boards at set times, and print one page per judge from the same assignment as the project lists, so the two can never disagree. ### What belongs on a route sheet - The judge's name and the fair line, such as the fair name and date. - Each project's code and title, its table or board number and its room. - The time of each visit, when the fair uses slots. - The round, when there is more than one. - A tick box, so the desk can see at a glance who has finished. Leave student names off. The table number finds the project, and the sheet is often left on a clipboard in a public hall. ### Walking order without slots Without slots, the assigner prints each judge's projects in walking order: room by room, row by row, table by table. It also tries, while it assigns, to give each judge projects close together, counting a room change as 4 steps, a row change as 2 and each table between as 0.1, up to 2 along one row, so a judge in the gym is not sent to the library and back. ### Schedules with time slots With slots, each visit gets a time. A judge is in one place at a time, is only given slots inside the hours they said they are there, and a project hosts at most as many judges at once as you allow: one for the classic walk round, the whole panel when judges interview together. One regional judging guide listed below plans about eight to ten minutes per project, which is a sensible slot with a short walk. ### Worked example: twelve ten minute slots The sample fair in the [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/) was given 12 slots of 10 minutes from 09:00 to 11:00, one judge at a table at a time. The assigner filled 108 of 108 seats with 0 broken rules. This is Marcus Bell's route sheet as it prints: | Time | Table | Room | Project | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 09:00 to 09:10 | B11 | Library | P123 Robot arm from syringes | | 09:10 to 09:20 | B7 | Library | P119 Bridge truss strength | | 09:20 to 09:30 | B3 | Gym | P115 Insulation and ice melt | | 09:40 to 09:50 | B2 | Gym | P114 Best angle for a paper airplane | | 09:50 to 10:00 | B1 | Gym | P113 Pendulum length and period | | 10:10 to 10:20 | B5 | Gym | P117 Sound through different solids | | 10:20 to 10:30 | B6 | Gym | P118 Solar oven design | | 10:40 to 10:50 | B4 | Gym | P116 Magnet strength and temperature | | 10:50 to 11:00 | A4 | Gym | P104 Plant growth under LED light | Gaps in the times are free slots: a judge with fewer projects than slots gets breaks, which is where late interviews and lunch go. ### Common mistakes - Printing route sheets from one spreadsheet and project lists from another, so they drift after a change. - Slots with no time for walking between rooms. - Scheduling a judge outside the hours they said they are there. - Two judges at one table at the same time when interviews are meant to be one to one. - Putting student names on a sheet left lying on a table. For fairs that judge in rotations with short visits, see [hackathon judging rotations](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/). ### Sources - [Category Judging Guide](https://science-fair.org/judges-3/category-judges/category-judging-guide/), Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship (science-fair.org), written for its 11 March 2021 judging day. At least two judges per project for award eligibility, teams of two to four judges each seeing eight to twelve projects in one category, about eight to ten minutes per project, and conflicts reported at the check-in desk before interviews. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Judging Plan](https://guide.mlh.com/general-information/judging-and-submissions/judging-plan), Major League Hacking, Hackathon Organizer Guide, 2026 season. Recommends science fair style expo judging at tables, each project seen by at least three judges, about four minutes per judge visit including travel, and staggering projects across judges. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. ### Frequently asked questions **What is a judge route sheet?** A single page a judge carries round the fair: the projects they are to judge, in the order to visit them, with table numbers, rooms, times if the fair uses slots, and a box to tick when each is done. **Should judging use fixed time slots?** Use slots when students must be at their boards at set times, when judges arrive and leave at different times, or when several judges must not crowd one table. Without slots, judges walk their list in table order at their own pace. **How long should a slot be?** Long enough for the interview plus the walk to the next table. One regional guide plans eight to ten minutes per project; a hackathon guide plans about four minutes per judge visit, travel included. **What goes on the sheet besides the route?** The judge's name, the fair name and date line, and nothing that identifies a student. Scores go on the separate scoring packet, which the assigner prints with your own criteria. ### More guides - [How to assign judges to science fair projects](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/) - [Science fair judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/) - [How many judges per science fair project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/) - [Category and expertise matching for judges](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/) - [Hackathon judging rotations and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/) Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # Category and expertise matching for judges, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > When to require science fair judges to stay in their own categories and when only to prefer it, how expertise tags help, and what each choice costs in panels. ## Category and expertise matching for judges Let each judge name the categories they can judge, then set category matching to preferred: the assigner keeps judges in their own categories wherever the panels can still be filled, and uses a judge from outside only where it must. Set it to required only when you have enough specialists, because a required match with too few judges leaves panels short. Expertise tags then break ties between judges who can all judge a category. ### Three settings - **Required.** A hard rule: a judge never judges outside their categories. A panel that cannot be filled from the right judges stays short, with the reason. - **Preferred.** A cost of 25 points per visit outside a judge's categories, weighed against loads and spread. The assigner never leaves a seat empty to avoid it. - **Off.** Any judge may judge any project. Useful for a hackathon or a small school fair where every judge sees every kind of project. ### Worked example: preferred against required The sample fair in the [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/) has six categories and twelve judges with two categories each, plus the rule that no two judges from one school or employer share a panel. With matching preferred, the assigner fills 108 of 108 seats and sends 4 visits to a judge outside their categories. Switch the same fair to required and it fills 104 of 108, leaving 4 projects short. The first one on the list reads: "P104 Plant growth under LED light: has 2 of 3 judges. Of the 10 other judges, 2 have a conflict with it, 8 do not judge Biology. Only 2 judges can judge it at all under these rules, and the rules ask for 3." The maximum flow check puts the ceiling at 106 seats, a ceiling that ignores the one school rule, so the assigner says the rules might allow up to that many rather than claiming a proof. For this fair, preferred is the better choice: 4 visits outside a category are easier to live with than 4 empty seats. ### Expertise tags Tags are short words a judge enters: soil, robots, water filter. A tag matches a project when every word of it appears in the project's category, flags or title, with plurals folded, so plants matches Plant growth under LED light. Each visit without a match costs 3 points, far less than a category miss, so tags only decide between judges who are otherwise equal. In the sample fair 21 visits match a tag. ### Common mistakes - Requiring category matches with one specialist per category, then finding panels short on the day. - Letting judges tick every category to be helpful, which hides who the real specialists are. - Using categories that do not match the ones on the entry forms, so nothing lines up. - Writing expertise as sentences instead of short words the titles actually use. - Forgetting that a generalist with no categories ticked can judge anything. Short panels are explained in [how many judges per project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/), and conflicts in [judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/). ### Sources - [Category Judging Guide](https://science-fair.org/judges-3/category-judges/category-judging-guide/), Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship (science-fair.org), written for its 11 March 2021 judging day. At least two judges per project for award eligibility, teams of two to four judges each seeing eight to twelve projects in one category, about eight to ten minutes per project, and conflicts reported at the check-in desk before interviews. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Judging Plan](https://guide.mlh.com/general-information/judging-and-submissions/judging-plan), Major League Hacking, Hackathon Organizer Guide, 2026 season. Recommends science fair style expo judging at tables, each project seen by at least three judges, about four minutes per judge visit including travel, and staggering projects across judges. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. ### Frequently asked questions **Should science fair judges only judge their own category?** Prefer it, and require it only where the category truly needs specialist knowledge and you have enough specialists. Requiring it with too few judges leaves panels short, and a short panel is worse than a capable judge from a neighbouring field. **What is the difference between categories and expertise tags?** Categories are the fair's divisions of projects, such as Chemistry or Engineering, and a judge picks the ones they can judge. Expertise tags are finer words, such as soil or robots, that the assigner matches against a project's category, flags and title as a tie breaker. **What if a judge can judge anything?** Leave their categories empty. The assigner treats them as able to judge any category, which makes them the most useful volunteers on a tight day. **Can I see which visits are outside a judge's categories?** Yes. The grid marks each one with a note, the comparison of two drafts counts them, and the Rules tab lets you switch between required and preferred and assign again to see the difference. ### More guides - [How to assign judges to science fair projects](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/) - [Science fair judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/) - [How many judges per science fair project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/) - [Science fair judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/) - [Hackathon judging rotations and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/) Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # Hackathon judging rotations and schedules, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/hackathon-judging-rotations/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > How to run hackathon expo judging in rotations: how many judges per team, how long each visit takes, how many slots you need, and a worked schedule. ## Hackathon judging rotations and schedules For expo style hackathon judging, keep teams at their tables and rotate the judges. Give every team the same number of judge visits, three if you can; make each slot about four minutes including the walk; and use as many slots as the busiest judge has visits, plus a few spare. Then assign judges to teams and times so no judge is in two places at once and no team has two judges at the same time. ### Why rotations A large hackathon organiser guide, listed below, recommends science fair style judging: teams present at their tables as judges arrive, every project is seen by at least three different judges, and projects are staggered across judges rather than clustered. Its planning figure is about four minutes per judge visit, with the demo, questions, scoring and the walk to the next table inside that time. ### The slot arithmetic With 18 teams and 3 visits each, the rotation holds 54 visits. Spread over 6 judges that is 9 visits each, so the rotation needs at least 9 slots. At 4 minutes a slot that is 36 minutes of judging; the example adds 3 spare slots so there is room to move a visit when a demo overruns. ### Worked example: 18 teams, 6 judges, 4 minute slots An invented hackathon with 18 teams at tables A1 to A9 in the hall and B1 to B9 in the lab, and 6 judges with no categories, was given 12 slots of 4 minutes from 13:00 to 13:48, one judge at a table at a time, and 3 judges per team. The [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/) filled 54 of 54 visits, gave every judge 9 teams, and broke 0 rules. Judge A's rotation: | Time | Table | Room | Team | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 13:00 to 13:04 | A2 | Hall | Team 2 | | 13:04 to 13:08 | A1 | Hall | Team 1 | | 13:20 to 13:24 | A9 | Hall | Team 9 | | 13:24 to 13:28 | A8 | Hall | Team 8 | | 13:28 to 13:32 | A7 | Hall | Team 7 | | 13:32 to 13:36 | A6 | Hall | Team 6 | | 13:36 to 13:40 | A3 | Hall | Team 3 | | 13:40 to 13:44 | A4 | Hall | Team 4 | | 13:44 to 13:48 | A5 | Hall | Team 5 | ### Setting it up Paste the teams as projects, with the table and room of each; the category column can hold the prize track. Paste the judges with the hours they are there. On the Rules tab, set the judges per project, switch on time slots, add a run of slots and set one judge at a table at a time. Assign, check the grid, lock anything a sponsor has asked for, and print the route sheets. ### Common mistakes - Judging rooms, so a team is only compared with the few teams that shared its room. - Too few slots, so the rotation only works if nothing overruns. - Two judges arriving at one table together when demos are meant to be one to one. - A judge whose own company sponsored a team judging that team. - Posting the rotation late, so teams leave their tables before their last judge arrives. The same method runs a science fair with timed interviews; see [judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/). ### Sources - [Judging Plan](https://guide.mlh.com/general-information/judging-and-submissions/judging-plan), Major League Hacking, Hackathon Organizer Guide, 2026 season. Recommends science fair style expo judging at tables, each project seen by at least three judges, about four minutes per judge visit including travel, and staggering projects across judges. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Pricing](https://hackhq.io/pricing), HackHQ. A free plan of three judges and ten submissions, paid plans per event, and three judge assignment modes: all judges, per judge and judging rooms. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. - [Pricing](https://scorejudge.com/pricing/), ScoreJudge. A free plan of three judges and five entries in one competition, paid plans by the month; no plan mentions automatic assignment or conflicts of interest. Last reviewed 27 September 2026. ### Frequently asked questions **How long should hackathon judging take?** Work it out from the visits: teams times judges per team, divided by the number of judges, gives the visits each judge makes. Multiply by the minutes per visit and add a few spare slots. The example on this page needs about three quarters of an hour. **Should judges visit teams or teams present to judges?** Expo style, where teams stay at their tables and judges rotate, is fairer than judging rooms, because every team is compared across several judges rather than against the few projects that happened to share a room. **What about sponsor prize judges?** Add them as judges with the prize track as their only category and a small maximum, and give the track's teams that category. With category matching preferred, the assigner sends them to that track's teams first. Or keep them out of the rotation and give them the project list. **Can a judge's teams be kept in one area?** Yes. The assigner prices walking between tables and rooms, so each judge's rotation tends to stay in one room and move along a row. ### More guides - [How to assign judges to science fair projects](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-to-assign-judges-to-projects/) - [Science fair judge conflicts of interest](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-conflicts-of-interest/) - [How many judges per science fair project](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/how-many-judges-per-project/) - [Science fair judge route sheets and schedules](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/judge-route-sheets/) - [Category and expertise matching for judges](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/category-and-expertise-matching/) Last reviewed 27 September 2026. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # Science fair judging questions and answers, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/faq/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > Answers about Judgegrid: where projects and judges are kept, which rules are hard, what happens when a project is short of judges, and what is free. ## Questions about Judgegrid Short answers. The [guides](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/guide/) explain the rules, the balance and the reasons in more detail, and the [judge assigner](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/assign/) is where you try them. ### Frequently asked questions **What does Judgegrid do?** It assigns judges to projects. You paste the projects and the judges, set how many judges each project needs, how many projects a judge may take, and who may not judge whom, and it builds the assignment. It keeps every hard rule, never broken silently: a project that cannot get every judge it needs is listed with the reason. It evens out loads and prefers judges who know the category. Then it prints a route sheet for every judge, the judge list for every project, a master grid, a conflict audit, blank scoring packets and a check-in list. **Who is it for?** School, district and regional science fair coordinators, and anyone who sends volunteer judges round a room of entries: hackathons, student showcases, engineering expos, art and project nights. **Where are the projects and judges kept?** In this browser, on this device, and nowhere else. There is no server and no account: the assignment runs on the page, the fair is saved in the browser's own storage, and nothing you paste is uploaded. Save a backup file to move a fair to another computer. **Do I have to enter student names?** No. A project code and a title are enough. Student initials are optional; enter them only if a judge has declared that they know a student, so the tool can keep that judge away from the project. **Which rules are hard rules?** Conflicts of interest (a judge's own school when that rule is on, other schools they name, projects they name and students they know), the category rule when you set it to required, availability windows and time slots, each judge's maximum, one place at a time (no two visits at overlapping times), no judge twice on one project, and no two judges from one school on a panel when that rule is on. The assigner never breaks one silently: a seat it cannot fill stays empty and is listed with the reason. **What happens when a project cannot get enough judges?** Its missing seats stay empty and the project is listed with the reason, judge by judge: for example that four judges have a conflict with it, five do not judge its category and three are at their maximum. When the rules make a full panel impossible for every arrangement, the tool says that too, and you can add a judge, raise a maximum or ease a rule. **What does balanced mean here?** Judge loads as even as the maximums and availability allow, every judge at or above the minimum you set where there is enough work, judges in their own categories where a match is preferred, expertise tags matched to a project's category or flags, and schools spread across each panel. These are traded off; hard rules are never traded. **Is the result the same every time?** Yes. The assigner is deterministic: the same fair, rules and seed always give the same assignment. Try another arrangement uses a new seed when you want a different one that keeps the same rules. **Can I move judges by hand?** Yes. Drag a judge's visit to another judge or another time, or choose from the lists on each visit, and every conflict flag is checked again as you move. A move that breaks a rule is allowed but flagged in red, so you decide. Lock the visits you are sure of, then rebalance the rest around them. **What if a judge does not show up on the day?** Remove the judge, or set their maximum to zero, lock the visits that have already happened, and rebalance. The other judges pick up the empty seats where the rules allow, and anything still unfilled is listed with the reason. **Does it score projects or ship a rubric?** No. Scoring stays with your judges and your fair's own rubric. The blank scoring packets carry only the criteria you type, with a box for each score and a comments area. **Is it fair?** Fairness is the coordinator's call, the tool only applies the rules you enter. It keeps the conflicts you declare and balances what you ask it to balance, and the conflict audit shows what it did, but it cannot know about a conflict nobody entered. **What does it cost?** Nothing. Every feature is free with no sign up and nothing is for sale. **Is it affiliated with any fair, competition or judging software?** Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. --- # Privacy: fair details never leave your browser, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/privacy/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > How Judgegrid handles a fair: projects, judges and any student initials are assigned, saved and printed in your browser, and nothing is ever sent anywhere. ## Privacy: fair details never leave your browser How Judgegrid handles a fair: projects, judges and any student initials are assigned, saved and printed in your browser, and nothing is ever sent anywhere. ### What you type about projects, students and judges A fair list is projects next to schools, and a judge list is volunteers next to their employers and the people they know. Judgegrid needs a project code and title to tell projects apart and a judge's name to print a route sheet. Student names are never required: the optional student field takes initials, and it is only used to keep a judge away from a student they have said they know. It never asks for a birth date, a photo, an address, a phone number, a parent's details or any health information, and it has no field where one would go. ### What stays on your device The assignment runs in your browser, in a background worker on this page. There is no server side to this site: it is a set of static files. Nothing you paste, assign, move or print is transmitted anywhere, and there are no analytics on the judge assigner. Your work is written to your browser's own local storage, under keys beginning with `judgegrid.` and nowhere else. It belongs to one browser on one device: it does not follow you to another computer, it is not backed up by us, and nobody else can read it. Clearing site data for this site removes it permanently. Use the backup button on the Drafts tab to keep a copy as a file; that file is saved wherever you choose and is yours to keep or delete. ### No accounts There is no sign up, no sign in, no email capture and no password. Every page, including the judge assigner and every printout, works without identifying yourself in any way. ### What is collected No account, no advertising identifiers, and nothing you enter. Standard web server logs kept by the static host may record the request for a page, its time and a network address, in the ordinary way any web server records a request. ### Purchases If paid plans are offered, a purchase is handled by RevenueCat and Stripe, who receive what a payment needs, such as your email address and card, and never your projects or judges. An anonymous purchase id is stored in this browser so your access is recognised here. ### Cookies Judgegrid sets no cookies of its own and carries no advertising or cross site tracking scripts. ### Your fair's rules Keeping the data on your device is a design choice, not a compliance certificate. Judgegrid makes no claim that using it satisfies any law or policy about student records or volunteer records. Follow your fair's and your school's rules about where that information may be kept, and about the device you use. ### Children The site is a planning tool for fair coordinators and organisers and is not directed at children. ### Changes If this policy changes in a way that affects what is collected, the change will appear on this page. ### Contact Questions about privacy go to socialreminderinfo@gmail.com. Since nothing is stored on a server, most requests are answered by telling you which local storage keys to clear. --- # Terms of use for the judge assignment tool, Judgegrid URL: https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/terms/ Last reviewed: 2026-09-27 > The terms that apply when you use Judgegrid, the limits of what a judge assignment aid can be relied on for, and what stays free for every fair. ## Terms of use The terms that apply when you use Judgegrid, the limits of what a judge assignment aid can be relied on for, and what stays free for every fair. ### What this is Judgegrid is a planning aid that turns the projects, judges and rules you type into a proposed judge assignment, and prints documents from it. It applies the rules you enter; it does not know your judges or your entrants, so it does not decide who judges what and gives no view on any project or person. Fairness is the coordinator's call, the tool only applies the rules you enter. A seat it reports as unfilled is unfilled only under the rules you gave it. Check the assignment and every printout before they are shared with judges. ### Student and judge information Type what you need to run the judging and no more. Student names are never required. Nothing you enter leaves your browser. You remain responsible for following your fair's rules about student and volunteer information on the device you use. Judgegrid makes no fairness, legal or compliance claim about the assignments it proposes, and it ships no scoring rubric. ### Names used Software, fairs and organisations are named in the guides only to describe them, with the date their public pages were read. Judgegrid is not affiliated with any science fair, science fair organisation, competition, hackathon, school, school district or judging software company. ### What is free Judge assignments for a fair of up to 40 projects and 12 judges are free to use with no account and stay that way, as do the review grid with every conflict flag, route sheets, project judge lists, the master grid, the check-in list, and JSON backup and restore. When billing is enabled, a paid tier adds larger fairs, rounds and time slots, saved drafts and comparison, CSV, the conflict audit and scoring packets on top of that. Nothing free is moved behind a gate to make room for it. ### Your data Anything the site remembers is stored by your own browser on your own device. You can clear it at any time, we cannot recover it, and it does not follow you to another device. Save a backup file regularly while you plan the judging. ### Refunds Not happy with a purchase? Email [socialreminderinfo@gmail.com](mailto:socialreminderinfo@gmail.com) within 14 days of a first purchase, or within 7 days of a renewal, and we will refund it. Send the message from the email address you used at checkout, and include: - the email address used at checkout (if you are writing from a different address) - your access code, shown on the [Premium](https://judgegrid-web.pages.dev/premium/) page while you have Premium on the browser you purchased from - roughly when you purchased, and which plan (yearly or lifetime) - the last 4 digits of the card, if you have the receipt handy That is everything needed to find the purchase and process the refund. This policy does not limit any statutory rights you may have. ### Acceptable use Use the site to plan judging. Do not scrape it at a rate that degrades it for other people, and do not enter more about a student or a judge than you need to assign the judging. ### Warranty and liability The site is provided as it is, without warranty of any kind. To the extent the law allows, Judgegrid is not liable for any loss arising from its use or from reliance on assignments it proposes. Check every sheet before you share it with judges. ### Contact Questions, and reports of an assignment that breaks a hard rule it should have kept, go to socialreminderinfo@gmail.com. A hard rule broken by the assigner is a defect and gets fixed.