Alternative to Random Winner Selection


#1

We have noted some concerns about the Abandoned Contest Random Winner Selection Process. While we use a random algorithm to make the selection, there are still individuals concerned about bias.

We are considering updating the process, and we’d like your feedback:

In the event of an abandoned contest, we will split the award amount equally between all Creatives who receive the highest contest rating. For example, in a contest where three Creatives receive Love It ratings, the award amount will be split equally amount these three Creatives. In a contest with no Love It ratings and five Like It ratings, the award amount will be split amount the five Creatives with Like It ratings.


#2

IMHO, the current system works pretty well, and you can never please everyone.

Implementing this suggestion will often result in lots of people getting nominal/minuscule payouts instead of a few people getting a meaningful amount. I prefer the latter.


#3

That sounds fair, Grant - What about in the case when there are 4 or 5 “Loves” or “Likes,” and one of the top-ranking Creatives has more than 1 high rating?

Would the fact that his or her entries were clearly the Client’s “favorite” make a difference?

P.S. Thanks for all you do! :kiss:


#4

I agree with lightless. The winner selection process for abandoned contests has changed a few times over the years based on creatives feedback/concerns about unfair selection/favoritism. Now it is has been made random to eliminate those concerns. I think we all have to learn to accept the things that are not exactly the way we want them to be. SH consistently goes above and beyond to make this platform as fair as possible for clients and creatives. No other site of its kind even comes close. Some sites don’t bother to choose a winner in abandoned contests. Creatives are just left in the dark indefinitely. If the client does not come back and choose a winner themselves creatives are s*** outta luck. I am fine with the selection process as it is and I was fine with it the way it was before because I believe SH is working with the best intentions.


#5

I agree as well. It works well as is in my opinion.


#6

I agree with Lightless and Tkpro. Even though I sometimes don’t like that I wasn’t chosen, I feel like I get my fair share of awards on abandoned contests. If I were to suggest anything on this, I would say on the largest contests ($500 or more, not $300), then maybe it would make sense. That doesn’t happen that often.


#7

I agree with Lightless as well. It’s fair the way it is now. Split 2 people for under $200 and split 4 people for $200 and over. There are some contests where there are 30 likes - so for a $100 contest everyone gets $3…no thank you. Are you even allowed to transfer 30 payments of $3 on paypal? Anyway…I think the minimum amounts we split works well as it is now.


#8

Right, there’s such a thing as too small of a split. This doesn’t have a perfect solution. It seems that creatives would win abandoned contests if they tend to have high ratings in those contests. It becomes a problem if creatives are often rated high and don’t win splits proportionately.


#9

I think the current system only works if the CH continues to rate throughout the contest. Otherwise it only benefits the early birds and the hard work of others is never rewarded. I still prefer the old way of choosing where our entries were at least looked at by someone for consideration.


#10

I wasn’t a fan of the current process when it was implemented, but I’ve become quite comfortable with it. However, I completely agree, especially now that there’s an early access feature. Some people just have the deck stacked against them. As I’ve stated many times in the past, I appreciate a level playing field and the current process doesn’t completely support that.

If it went back to the old way I’d be okay with that as I trust SH to make fair unbiased decisions, but, I’m cool with the current way…just wish there was a way to include unrated/unseen entries.

Mandatory ratings would help!


#11

Grant, having to use phone few more days, untill laptop is repaired. I saw post u sent me. I went back to respond, couldn’t find it. Anyway please delete the post in question. I’m really sorry. My thinking was, you may get an advantage, But shouldn’t have contacted CH. They’re reasons rules are made
Didn’t come out the way .it should. Again, Very Sorry.


#12

I’m still learning the abandoned contest system, so cannot comment on which system is better. Based on what you wrote though, your alternation may benefit from a tweak, as AlwriteyThen suggests. If one Creative has more likes in the category (or loves) than anyone else with the same ranking, it would seem fairer to give them more of the split. And maybe there should be a cut-off, where only the top three get awarded.

I’ll use the 5 Creatives with likes, as an example. If one of those Creatives got two likes, and the rest got one, then the Creative with two likes, takes first and second place. Whoever was rated next as liked by the CH, gets third place. End of split. If the first Creative got 5 likes, then they could take first, second and third. In the case multiple Creatives get multiple likes, then it gets split 2 or 3 ways only, between those with the most likes.

The reason I suggest this, is incentive to submit better names. My names only got better, the more I took the top rating Creatives (box in the sidebar of the Contest), seriously. With limited places (3) you’re forced to up your game. I actually started withdrawing names I thought sucked, rather than labouring the CH with them - which made me submit even better names.

If any modification is going to be made, first, second and third place, is a traditional awarding system. It recognises the best, the runner up and the closest of those two places. Without those three limited spaces, there’s no incentive to get better. But that’s only if the system does change. As I said, I’m still learning about it.


#13

It would be more fair, equal pay for equal work and results. When you receive regular compensation for your highest ratings, even in small amounts, it adds up. The current system is more of a lottery.


#14

There’s not going to be a way to please everyone. I believe that unless the CH is required to rate every submission and every highest rated submission gets an equal amount of the award, it will never be completely and totally equal for everyone. BUT I think the way it works now is fine, since I don’t think that receiving a $2 or $3 award would be as good as how it works now. Some CHs love so many submissions that the payout to each one would be so low it wouldn’t matter.