Judges Scoring Guide
Judges Scoring Guide
SEO Reborn: Testing Hackathon 2026
Audience: Hackathon judges · Last updated: 2026-05-17
← Back to Hackathon Home
1. Quick Reference
| Leaderboard | imgscience.net/hackathon2026/leaderboard |
| Participant Guide | imgscience.net/hackathon2026/docs/leaderboard-guide |
| KPI Methodology | imgscience.net/hackathon2026/docs/kpi-methodology |
| Judges Rubric | Google Drive (link TBD by PM) |
2. Role of the Leaderboard in Judging
The leaderboard is your real-time dashboard for tracking team SEO performance — but it is not the official scoring tool.
- Leaderboard → Informational. Tracks quantitative SEO KPIs in real time.
- Judges Rubric → Official. Assesses qualitative dimensions (strategy, craft, creativity, adherence to track guidelines).
Use the leaderboard to spot momentum shifts, identify outliers, and cross-reference KPI data with your qualitative assessment. Final rankings come from the rubric, not raw leaderboard position.
3. Accessing the Leaderboard
- Go to imgscience.net/hackathon2026/leaderboard
- No login required — the leaderboard is publicly viewable
- Use the track tabs at the top to filter by track (On-Page SEO, Off-Page SEO, AI/GEO Optimization)
- Data refreshes automatically every ~30 seconds; KPI values update on their source schedule (see Section 5)
4. Reading the Leaderboard
Table Columns
| Column | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Rank | Current position within the selected track (1 = top score) |
| Team Name | Clickable — opens the team’s profile page |
| Track | Competition track |
| Score | Composite score from 0–100 (see Section 5) |
| KPIs | Individual metric values — expand or hover for detail |
Interpreting Scores
- Scores are normalized per track — a team in On-Page SEO is only compared against other On-Page SEO teams
- A score of 85 means the team is performing at 85% of the theoretical maximum within their track
- Scores are relative, not absolute — they reflect competitive standing, not intrinsic SEO quality
- Track score movement (↑ or ↓ since last update) is a leading indicator of momentum
5. Scoring Methodology
The 7 KPIs and Their Weights
| # | KPI | Source | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Organic Sessions | GA4 | 25% | Volume of visitors from organic search |
| 2 | Avg Engagement Time | GA4 | 15% | Average seconds visitors spend actively on the site |
| 3 | Bounce Rate (inverted) | GA4 | 10% | Percentage of single-page sessions — lower bounce scores higher |
| 4 | New Users | GA4 | 15% | First-time visitors from organic search |
| 5 | Click-Through Rate (CTR) | GSC | 15% | Percentage of search impressions that result in a click |
| 6 | Avg Position (inverted) | GSC | 10% | Average search result position — lower (better rank) scores higher |
| 7 | Backlinks | Ahrefs | 10% | Number of external linking domains |
Scoring Formula
+ (engagement_time_norm × 0.15)
+ (bounce_rate_inv_norm × 0.10)
+ (new_users_norm × 0.15)
+ (ctr_norm × 0.15)
+ (position_inv_norm × 0.10)
+ (backlinks_norm × 0.10)
How normalization works: Each KPI is min-max normalized within its track. The best-performing team on a given KPI sets the ceiling (1.0), the lowest sets the floor (0.0), and all other teams land proportionally between. Inverted KPIs (Bounce Rate, Avg Position) flip the scale so lower raw values produce higher normalized scores.
Data Freshness
| Source | Update Frequency | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| GA4 | ~5 minutes | Near real-time |
| GSC | ~30 minutes | Google Search Console has inherent latency |
| Ahrefs | Daily | Optional — may be excluded if sponsorship is pending |
Newly provisioned teams may show “No data yet” for GSC metrics and backlinks until enough data accumulates. This is expected and not a scoring failure.
6. What Judges Should Evaluate
Quantitative Signals (from the Leaderboard)
- Momentum: Is a team’s score trending up, down, or flat over multiple cycles?
- Outliers: Are any teams dramatically over- or under-performing peers in the same track?
- KPI balance: Is a team dominating one KPI while neglecting others? A well-rounded profile often indicates sound SEO strategy.
- Consistency: Stable scores suggest methodological work; volatile scores may indicate experimentation or luck-based tactics.
Qualitative Dimensions (from the Judges Rubric)
The leaderboard does not capture:
| Dimension | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Content quality & originality | Technical SEO alone doesn’t win — substance matters |
| Strategy & methodology | What was the thought process behind the optimizations? |
| Innovation & creativity | Novel approaches, clever tactics, outside-the-box thinking |
| Track-specific execution | Did they fully engage with their track’s focus area? |
| Learning & growth trajectory | How much did the team improve from start to finish? |
| Collaboration | How well did the team work together? (if multi-member) |
These qualitative factors are assessed through the separate Judges Rubric (Google Drive). The rubric defines specific criteria, point allocations, and scoring bands per track.
7. Track-Specific Judging Context
On-Page SEO Track
Teams compete on content optimization, meta tag implementation, internal linking structure, Core Web Vitals, site architecture, and on-site user experience.
KPIs to watch: Engagement Time, Bounce Rate (inverted).
Qualitative focus: Does the content match search intent? Are technical on-page fundamentals sound?
Off-Page SEO Track
Teams compete on backlink acquisition strategy, domain authority building, referral traffic generation, and external signal development.
KPIs to watch: Backlinks, CTR.
Qualitative focus: Quality of backlinks (not just quantity). Is the link-building ethical and sustainable?
AI / GEO Optimization Track
Teams compete on AI-optimized content creation, GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) strategies, LLM visibility tactics, and innovative AI-driven approaches.
KPIs to watch: Organic Sessions, New Users, Engagement Time.
Qualitative focus: Is the AI use strategic rather than spammy? Are GEO tactics sound and ethical?
8. Common Scenarios for Judges
| Scenario | What to do |
|---|---|
| Team has zero GSC data | Expected for newly provisioned teams. GA4-only KPIs still provide signal. |
| Team’s backlinks show “N/A” | Ahrefs integration may be pending. Score adjusts automatically when data arrives. |
| Score seems inconsistent with qualitative assessment | Normal. The leaderboard is one input — trust your rubric-guided assessment. |
| Two teams have nearly identical scores | Look at KPI breakdown. Different compositions can produce similar composite scores. Your qualitative assessment will differentiate them. |
| One track has fewer teams than others | Normalization still produces valid relative scores. Smaller tracks mean larger score gaps are possible. |
9. Troubleshooting
| Issue | Likely cause | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Leaderboard not loading | Site issue | Refresh; wait 1 minute; report to CTO if persistent |
| Scores appear frozen | KPI collector stalled | Check the “last updated” timestamp at the top of the leaderboard |
| Missing team | Team may have been deprovisioned or provision still in progress | Check with PM |
| Unexpected score swing | Normalization recalculates when new data arrives or teams are added/removed | Monitor for 2–3 update cycles before flagging |
10. Related Documents
Questions? Reach the hackathon staff via Slack #testing-event.