This paper studies judgment aggregation from a large number of industry experts in the selection and development of early-stage ideas. Our context is the movie industry, in which customer appeal is difficult to predict and investment costs are high. The Black List, an annual publication, ranks unproduced scripts based on anonymous nominations from film executives. We find that listed scripts are twice as likely to be released as unlisted scripts and, conditional on release, generate a higher return on investment. Further evidence supports a causal interpretation of these differences in outcomes and suggests that by aggregating expert judgment, the List is able to discern good ideas from poor ones. We also find that scripts from less-experienced writers are more likely to be listed and to rank higher if listed. Yet in terms of release probability, even though being listed has a large and positive effect on less-experienced writers, the discrepancy relative to experienced writers remains large (even for the top-ranked scripts). These results on writer experience suggest a simple, albeit important, determinant of the data-generating process of such aggregations—the visibility of an idea among potential evaluators.