I can't participate more, unfortunately, and that's not the point though. That would still mean putting time and effort in to not really recoup for that. I don't participate in non guaranteed unless I am sure I have a decent chance if they do decide to award, and even then I will only do one or two and done. I'm not here to gripe, I swear. I understand why things are the way they are, I just think they can be a bit better fine-tuned and it was just an idea. An idea based on the fact that a lot of us are only clinging here based on certain things. And with the things have been recently, for some, it doesn't balance out. Sure, that may mean we lose some and they'll be replaced but whatever the outcome, it could be a little bit better. If SH suggests 6 names, why can't 12 at most more heavily be encouraged beyond that? CHs can print entries, and utilize ratings and everything else but a shortlist is thus name to be another tool. A short list. I can't ever see how 25 or more would help make things easier on the ch and make things fair for us as well. The shortlist, in my understanding, was meant to do both of those things. Make things easier for the CH and make things more fair for us in a way, so the use of it now in some contests is nulling its conceptualization.
Again it was just a question/suggestion and whatever happens is what happens. It's just there may be a way to have a better outcome for things, so that was the reason for mentioning it. If it can't be done or shouldn't then that's it. But I saw a way it may be better for CHs choices to ultimately be easier and a way for us to benefit better if they do abandon, so I thought to say something, that is all. Because in my opinion, narrowing choices down to a smaller amount is beneficial when making a decision, not only that but SH does offer testing and to my understanding it's for a certain amount anyhow. So there is many benefits, possibly, to this idea.