I actually wrote something different here but I had to remove it because the truth hurts and Iâve been asked to by SHâŚdidnât see that coming lol SMH
@Dan but negative ratings do not mean lack of quality the same as positive ratings do not equal superb quality. That is a bit of the point I am trying to make. I mean I have seen it said several times now that creatives watch a name be chosen and they are like âwhat were they thinking?â. So if that submission won it does not mean it was of quality. And it is not opinion but fact that someone with more experience is going to have higher probability of getting more positive ratings because they have learned the system. Sure they might hiccup now and again as no one have great ideas all the time, but those that know the system, rules, tricks, etc have a higher probability of getting higher ratings because they have more figured out. When one is new, limited, and only is able to jump into contests with untold numbers of people that have this experience, there is a higher statistical chance that those with that experience are going to get the majority of better ratings (not always based on quality) but for many factors like they are allowed more entries, are not as limited on being able to speak, find out things, communicate, and so on ⌠so in many levels wanting people to excel and basing their âlimitsâ on their âqualityâ when quality is defined as âratingsâ in this type of scenario is not necessarily level ground. I am not being negative to this, please donât think I am ⌠I am trying hard to explain the factors and basis and almost need for my suggestion and possibly some of these things to be highly considered. I ask for others contemplating this, as well as yourself to think statistically and logically with what I am saying and perhaps it may make more sense and I apologize if it does not. Again, I am not an expert trying hard to express a level of thinking and design that isnât my forte, but even though it may not be my forte does not mean that I donât see these factors and thought it suggestive to outline them and try to come up with some creatve way to address them. Thank you.
@Chasity2ku Thank you for not only trying to understand, but in some way understanding that this was never about me and was made as a suggestion for the benefit of creatives (new and old) and CHs alike. Honestly, at least having one person at my side (which is ridiculous that I would need because this is supposed to be an equal platform with no dodging or pushing or anything that the ârulesâ state) that seemed to understand that I was not asking for something easier just because I could not cut it â was what kept me from walking away. I wanted to suggest because I see something and I think itâs being overlooked a bit, but because I donât understand exactly how everything is done on this site (because I didnât create nor have an involvement with any of the ideas or technology) I am having a very hard time of explaining it and all 50+ factors involved without typing up a thesis explaining each factor one by one and still not knowing exact terminology or impact. But, that does not mean that the flaw I am seeing and the facors I am recognizing are not there, I just feel like someone in a dark room trying to convince those with flashlights to illuminate a certain area to see what I am seeing without being able to show them because itâs dark on my end.
@rareworthy So I just want to clarify what youâre saying so I can make sure I understand the idea before I form an opinion on it.
What I think youâre suggesting is contests only for newbies so that they can A) learn the ins and outs of the system and start coming into experience and B) receive ratings in a cloistered environment so that they can prove their quality without competing against people with more experience.
And some options youâve thought of for doing that are discounted contests held by real CHs and dummy contests held by SH for points?
Is that right?
[quote="Chasity2ku, post:390, topic:1179
[/quote]
I actually wrote something different here but I had to remove it because the truth hurts and Iâve been asked to by SHâŚdidnât see that coming lol SMH
BUT I WILL SAY, I THINK IâVE PROVEN MY POINT!!!
[quote=âBeDaring, post:393, topic:1179â]
What I think youâre suggesting is contests only for newbies so that they can A) learn the ins and outs of the system and start coming into experience
[/quote] Yes, making just a general assumption that anyone within their âlimitedâ time period may be someone that is not only new to SH but new to this type of thing all around and may need to not only learn the site and the process of the site, but learn how to creatively think and take in the factors of what the CH is thinking, asking for, wanting, etc and finetuning it all to be able to take the perspectives of the CH and the process into account for the best type of submission they can give with the limited entries they are only given.
[quote=âBeDaring, post:393, topic:1179â]
B) receive ratings in a cloistered environment so that they can prove their quality without competing against people with more experience
[/quote] Right because with the way the process is now, just as some creatives donât understand the naming process (and the thousands of things it can entail), some CHs donât understand the rating/review process and only rate above a three for those that directly stand out. Maybe they stand out more because the more experience and understanding everything. Plus there are countless of factors that are against new creatives. Limited entries because they donât have the token quality ratings, only finding out about a contest hours after hundreds of others have because they are of limited status which means the CHs are already being given âqualityâ choices long before the newbie creatives are allowed to enter because the contest hadnât been âassignedâ to them yet (which means that there is a high chance the way the CH will rate can highly differ for late-comers because they could have already seen many that they liked, only being able to enter so many contests because only some contests are assigned to them, and because there are many upon many with higher probability of higher ratings because of knowing the ins and outs and all other factors are already involved and had the ability to submit so many entries so much more time before they were able to.
I understand it is the way it is for a reason but âlimitedâ is limited in many aspects and pitting limited against those that arenât is a statistical blunder that getting higher ratings with all these factors and then the numerous others that I cant think of â to tone their âqualityâ to not be limited anymore â when just starting out is a bit much. Sure people slip through and eventually will. But that doesnât mean that there isnât possibly a blunder here. And my suggestion was just the only thing I could think of. But newbies that are true newbies are capable of providing quality (anyone and I emphasize ANYONE is) but it is going to statistically be overlooked for periods of time that can be short or long in this type of system so if in a limited capacity it would only be fair that if youâre going to limit AND judge quality that that judgment should only be based on those that are limited just like you not those that have free reign over countless of factors and allowances.
Yes, unfortunately those were the only ideas I could come up with that would mean that SH wouldnât have to change much nor what they have worked so hard on. The ways I thought of would allow the same exact system to stay in place for the most part ⌠ratings, percentages, algorithms, etc ⌠it would just provide a few fixes as well as more options for service and higher quality of service in the long run.
Okay, I got ya. Here are some of my thoughts.
I very firmly believe that experience helps with submitting good quality entries. But I also believe that people brand new to this can and do submit high quality entries all the time. I donât think the value of a creative thatâs been here for three weeks is less than the value of a creative thatâs been here for three years.
On discounted contest, Dan has already said pretty much what I think. It doesnât seem like a valuable choice. Paying to specifically not see entries from people who have submitted good things in the past doesnât make sense. Plus, perhaps even a bigger issue for me, is that newbies can and do submit great names all the time. Thatâs treating their work as somehow inferior to the work of veterans for no reason.
That said, experience can help you gain strategies for submitting names, develop language to help explain your ideas, learn to read into briefs, start to recognize rating styles among CHs, etc. A simulated contest held by SH for points wouldnât actually be able to give newbies any of those benefits. The difference between where I am now and where I was when I first started is largely a difference in knowing how the people behind the contests work. Put a fake CH with no stake in the contest behind it and none of those lessons will actually be learned.
Iâm all for giving newbies more support. But Iâm not for treating them as being less valuable just because theyâve been at it for less time. Unfortunately, I donât really have any ideas for how to support newbies more beyond supporting CHs more. With clearer briefs and more helpful rating, newbies who are submitting good things will be able to get out of their limited status faster.
Well said,I for one recognized your transformation from being brand new to the beginning of established, and the quality with which most of your winning names have.
Well isnât the whole point of restricting to identify who is producing quality and who isnât? How else can SH determine that. Itâs better to restrict then give full access then give full access and restrict. When you go for a drivers licence you donât start out by yourself on the road to prove yourself. You start in a restrict area to prove you are capable.
@Skevans Again, you canât necessarily determine quality with the system that is in place right now. The true definition of quality is a far cry from what is being shown. With all the factors previously stated, that does not depict quality.Also if youâre going to restrict for âqualityâ determine quality against comparitive factors not differing ones.
Actually, @skevans I think thats the point of number of submissions allowed. I think noobs are limited to entering certain contests to avoid name scooping, fake contestants etc.
But again, none of those rules would have to change for this to work.
You wouldnât pit a brand new driver, in your reference, against one that has been driving 30 years to make a comparison of quality because you would understand that one is new and one has more experience.
I want to repost a point I deleted earlier because a valid point was lost due to someone being offended. Iâm not quite sure why anyone was offended considering it wasnât directed at anybody in particular. I can only assume if you were offended, that thereâs a reason for that. News flashâŚthatâs your conscience pointing itâs finger at youâŚnot me!!!
Great, Iâm probably gonna have to delete that
Anyway back to my valid point:
I totally feel rareworthyâs frustration about his ideas and concerns falling on deaf ears. Itâs not that he/she wants people to agree or implement his/her ideas, itâs how itâs being recepted by his peers. It feels a bit condescending when you see room for improvement and want to share but youâre met with replies that make you feel like youâre just being a whiney baby and need to suck it up, keep trying, and stay positive.
Just because he hasnât âbeen through itâ doesnât mean sheâs looking for an easy road or a pep talk.
You mock peopleâs ideas and concerns for improvement when you continuously ignore their concerns and tell them itâs just the way it is.
That is allâŚflag away
@chasity2ku I think thereâs a misunderstanding of peopleâs intentions when they critique ideas. I donât think anybody said you or rareworthy were whiny babies. Thatâs something you are getting out of the replies that was never put into it. This would all be a lot less tense if we assumed good faith when talking to each other.
The reason rareworthy seeks this newbie only contest (I think) is so noobs donât have to compete against well established histories and knowledge of strategies that work and donât work. Itâs sad that a lot if you fail to see the point he is making. Heâs not worried your names are that much better than his (get over yourselvesâŚlol calm down its a joke peopleâŚplease donât make me erase it) itâs that it simply creates an unlevel playing field.
SH already said itâs not going to happen so you all can relax. Now, what is really the problem with this idea for those of you that donât like it? It literally has no affect on non noobs. Plus, nothing would change with limiting the noob other than no regulars allowed. So whatâs the real problem here?
I donât really believe itâs concern for the CH. They would be fully aware theyâre omitting the vets. No need to be concerned for them.
So what is it other than âthatâs how it was when I was growing upâ? (In my best old person voice lol )
My problems:
It cheapens the contributions of all newbies by treating them as being worth less than others.
The period of limitation is designed to weed out scammers as well as people who submit nonsense. Make a contest of all newbies and the ratio of nonsense will increase, making the whole contest drop in quality. That in turn makes the platform drop in quality.
I actually do think about it from the CH perspective. For me it just seems like it would cheapen the integrity of SquadHelp, just the whole idea of that kind of contest, regardless of whether the entries are good or not. It could turn people off. And less business for SH means less money for us.
In a way, we are already being considered more worthless than others. Weâre limited = we have limited availability to contests, we have limited ability to prove ourselves and yet the system defines that if we donât want to be limited we HAVE TO prove ourselves, Weâre given unfair disadvantages= 24-48 LATER contest access, limited submissions, not being able to ask questions of the CH privately or publicly to help ourselves learn what might be right,limited experience, less chance of being picked or even rated fairly with all of these things considered as well because weâre in a contest with 10-40 other vets with a lot more exposure, knowledge, time to submit, availability to submit, etc Weâre all thrown in the pool of âyou may be a childish game player who isnât here for any serious reason so until you can prove that you arenât but youâre going to have to tooth and claw because not all CHs understand how to rate, oh there have already been 200 submissions before you were allowed in this contest and by the time you come up with something absolutely quality there may be 200 more and youâre only going to have five tries when CH may have already seen 157 submissions they love in the time we made you wait and the time it takes you to come up with something, so good luck, but everyone went through it and there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this and no room for ideas point blank.â That pool isnât fun for everyone and I realize itâs purpose isnât to be, but I honestly feel that CHs could get better suggestions if everyone were on the same page with best ways to do things and things being fair for creatives of all levels because when things are fair less people are stressed. When they changed the rating system, several of you flipped out ⌠so worried what it would do and how it could be unfair, and how some didnât like it because it seemed that CHs didnât always necessarily know how to use it or sometimes didnt use it at all and still donât offer feedback to barely anyone and creatives have said its usually having to read minds and such. So if complaints have been spoken in the past, and this is a suggestion board and not all things are perfect, where is the problem that I have made a suggestion to all of these factors that most people STILL keeps over looking. It may seem perfect because it works for you, but that does not mean that there is a level playing field to prove yourself when you are forced to do such to not be seen as a âpotential riskâ and to be âseen as quality because you have no quality until a CH rates that you doâ.