This! Also, aside from getting rid of anonymous judging, it might be good to have separate panels to score GOE and PCS. I think it's probably very difficult for one judge to do both effectively.
GOEs don't take a lot of attention. For jumps, the element is over in a second, the decision is made right away, and there's nothing more to do except record the score.
After the program is the time to confirm whether there were underrotations or incorrect takeoff edges, or to check obscure rules for unusual situations. But there's not much more to be done about a questionable jump in real time once the skater has moved on to the next part of the program. So a judge who had nothing to do but score GOEs would be sitting there with nothing to think about between elements.
So if it were cost effective to split the panel, I'd recommend having the same judges who score GOEs also do Skating Skills and Transitions. Let a separate panel look at P/E, Choreography, and Interpretation.
I'm not sure that I agree. Some people didn't like the result of how the judges interpreted the scoring rules. But the rules should be more closely examined. For instance, on the jump GOE you get credit for having features like good height and distance. Yuna probably has the best distance and tied for the best height. However, while she has great height and distance she doesn't get more credit that someone who has good height and distance. So someone like Julia can match her GOE without the height by doing a step into the jump and having good flow in and out of the jump. I think just having these be "yes or no" is a flaw because it doesn't reward a technically exceptional jump without some other random feature (i.e. being done "with the music").
I agree that there should be a clearer mechanism for rewarding "great" more than just "good."
But I don't think that height and distance are the only things that are worth rewarding, or double-rewarding when applicable.
Some very athletic skaters might get great height and distance on their jumps but have have long telegraphed setups, poor form in the air, break at the waist on landing, flutzes or lips or skidded takeoffs on axels and loops, etc.
And what about the skater who gets good distance, good flow in and out, without much height, or vice versa?
Height and distance are only two areas where one skater's jumps might be better than another's. Other areas deserve to be rewarded as well.
The biggest jumps might not be the "best" jumps.
The ladies LP in 2002 SLC, Sarah Hughes should win the LP, hands down.
But, she barely won it in a 5-4 split!! Four judges decided to go with Irina that night. I wonder what they saw?!
skate order?!
Skate order probably had something to do with the Russian and Danish judges putting Hughes 4th in the free -- they had her behind Cohen, long before Slutskaya skated.
What might any of the judges who didn't have Hughes first have preferred about Slutskaya's, Kwan's, or Cohen's performances? Well, those three skaters had differences between them, so I doubt it was simple style preference. But some judges might have thought Slutskaya was better than Hughes in some areas (e.g., speed, spin speed, lutz takeoff) and best overall for that reason, and those who put her behind Kwan or Cohen as well may have preferred their better body line even though that was not also a strength of Slutskaya's.
Hughes had a reputation for cheating jumps and for flutzing -- her lutz takeoff technique was one of the worst ever at the elite medal-winning level. (I can talk because I make similar mistakes on my single lutz attempts -- turning it more into a toe-assisted salchow even than a flip.) I don't think her underrotations were as bad at SLC as at some of her previous events, but they were still a weakness that may have caused some judges to discount her worthiness.
If SLC had been judged under IJS with a strict technical panel, we probably would have seen a lot of < and << calls; if Hughes had the most in the final group, she probably wouldn't have won.
The NFL does release statements clarifying controversial calls made by referees and in some cases, even admitting that some calls are wrong. 
