Anonymity, apples, oranges, green grasses and other issues

Dan pulled the rug on the previous thread just as I hit the reply button, so @Chasity2ku- I want the chance to reply to what you wrote.

I have absolutely no problem with going anonymous, though I saw earlier that some people are against it. I really couldn’t care less. Eliminate all profile pages too and the winners page, for all I care. Make all the stats disappear. It’s all fluff as far as I’m concerned and mainly causes people to become obsessed with comparisons instead of focusing on the contests. I think the key problem with what you wrote is this:

"However, I have felt on so many occasions that the winning name was no better/no more creative than some of mine. Even sometimes very similar yet mine gets the lowest rating and theirs wins. It has led me to wonder why the same creatives continuously win with names that don’t always wow everybody??"

Names aren’t supposed to wow you or me or any other creative. They’re supposed to be suggested in order to suit a specific CH for a specific project. Often something that’s close to what other people suggested is chosen. Happens a million times and will happen a million more. You win some, you lose some. Some people win more. Some people win less. There’s no other option. This endless comparing of names to winning names and thinking ‘my names are better or just as good’ is pointless, unproductive and most of all a false way of thinking because it’s comparing apples with oranges and trying to decide which one a contest holder (or recently SH when they made selections) should enjoy eating. It’s all subjective.

Yes, a winning name can sometimes be very clever and wow people. But it doesn’t have to be. I repeat what I said earlier- don’t fall in love with your entries, people. If you think something is really good, it might fit a different CH down the road. The fact that it didn’t win this instance means absolutely nothing about its value. It just means that it wasn’t picked this time because there were a thousand other entries by 100 other creatives and only one person wins. And if people win a lot of contests, then they’re more in tune with what CHs are looking for and you should try to be that way too. The neighbor’s grass is always greener, but maybe everybody should pay more attention to their own grass and maybe then it would be greener too.


I think this ties into what some people were saying about the ratings not working (I hope this isn’t too much of a topic shift, but I see it as being super related so bear with me).

I think there’s a difference here in how creatives are thinking and how CHs are thinking. When we see a name that’s similar to ours, we appreciate that it was a similar thought process that got to that name. However, a CH can see and instantly hate it. It doesn’t sound right, it doesn’t look good, they don’t want it. Ever. So they hit No Thank you and move on.

Later they see and they love it! It just hits that little spot in their brain that makes their heart swell and eyes fill with dollar signs. So they hit Love It and it eventually wins.

The fact that GreatDomain and BestDomain are almost identical doesn’t ever occur to them, let alone reflect in their ratings, because they aren’t thinking like creatives. They’re thinking like the owner of the business that’s going to use that domain.

Could this be something broken with the rating system? Maybe. There could certainly be a better system. But it also comes with the territory. Especially considering the sheer volume of ideas CHs are hit with. At some point they just have to make decisions about what works for them.

Some people are just fickle and don’t know what they like. They hate Golden Grahams but they love Cinnamon Toast Crunch even though the cereals are essentially identical. There’s nothing we can do but quietly sneer at CTC and save our Golden Grahams for somebody who’s going to appreciate it.


Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for that.

1 Like

I agree with you both. But for me these points really have nothing to do with my point.

I want creatives names etc left out of the process because I see no need for them. I have given examples as to why I feel this way purely to give support to my cause, not to complain that I never win.

@moretal I respect you don’t go for the “fluff” but I do. I love it!!! I’m super competitive and I thrive on it. It’s just in my nature :slight_smile: that’s one of the reasons I want everything fair. I don’t want to have a leg up on anyone or them on me…PERIOD!

I would also like to say I’ve chosen my words wrong as I can’t think of one contest I actually think I lost because of someone else’s history. Just that I feel my entries are sometimes looked over when the winning name is revealed and it turns out I was on the right track all along with no recognition in the ratings.


The bottom line is…the CH likes what they like.I doubt they even look at who submitted the name.They just want to find a name for their business or product. When there are 1,000 names or even 500…I seriously doubt they look at or consider anything other than if the name resonates with them or not.They couldn’t care less who gave it to them.

Just like any scenario in the world…there are different tastes. Not all good taste,or what we each might think is good taste according to what we like.

Not everybody is going to appreciate a well thought out name that fits perfectly.Maybe they love the cheesy one, or the boring one,or the one that realistically would never work for a business name, or the one they could have thought up themselves. It’s their dime,so they are entitled.

So yeah…we can roll our eyes, shout at the screen,feel slighted and frustrated, and feel our name was 1,000 times better…and maybe it was.

But for whatever reason the CH didn’t choose it…and he’s the boss. The end.


Well said hollygirl you’re absolutley right. But can someone give me a reason why they’re actually against anonymity rather then telling me losing is part of the process and how it’s subjective and things that I am completely aware of. I feel like the point has been lost, yet again😕

The only person to actually give me a valid reason is ironically the exact reason I want anonymity.

Anonymity can’t happen. How else will the CH communicate w/ us if they have questions on specific entries, etc? They need to know who they’re dealing with. For all they’d know, we’d just be some name generator site with no real people working for them. I can’t imagine any CH would appreciate anonymity over knowing who their creatives are.

they have never communicated with me in 4 years

1 Like

Thank you for giving me something to acually work with :wink:

They would just reply to that entry just like they do now only no name displayed. I can’t recall one time I was addressed in a private comment. It’s always just the comment. I do see CHs reply by creative name in public comments but there is no need for anonymity there.

Also, they’d know its a bot by the replies and report it.

If the CH wants a personal experience then why not hire an agency they connect with. They should just be interested in our ideas.

Sorry I wrote this fast…gotta go :slight_smile:

The only value for us as creatives I can see in the CH knowing who is submitting names is that they can see the direction a creative is headed in and help steer them, specifically, working with the whole of their entries. But that doesn’t seem all that realistic.

As for value on the CHs side, I can see a few ways.

If CHs are looking at creatives’ resumes, is that a good or bad thing? It seems to me that if a CH looks at how many other companies have used names from a creative and they feel more confident in their names because of that, that’s adding value for the CH. It’s like a company showing off it’s list of clients. Creatives can show off their list of clients to increase their reputation, which in turn gives the CH confidence.

Or, like @kreativekim said, it can help give them the sense of “Look at all these real, diverse people sending me entries.” People like to feel like they’re getting personal attention, whether they’re having a real conversation with that person or not.

So, for me, this is a question of whether the value identifying contestants gives to the CH outweighs the lack of value for the creatives. Or if an increased barrier to success because winning begets more winning is hurting creatives in a way that outweighs the value to the CH.

I don’t see why communication would need to cease privately between creatives and CH. I also don’t see harm in the CH knowing that a group of entries is from the same creative. I just don’t see a need for the creatives identity to be revealed.

It seems I’m alone in wanting this tho so I’ll let it rest. I can’t seem to grasp the importance of needing a face/stats/history etc attached to an entry tho.

1 Like

@Chasity2ku, Let me comfort you with some reflections. What is the real value of having a resume dotted with multiple wins if every single win (beyond the first) is a DERIVATIVE of a previous win ? Let’s hypothesize that a contestant’s 22 wins are amassed along this formula: in each and every contest participated by the creative that resulted in that creative’s win, the CH is presented with two or more names of nearly indistinguishable/equal quality coming from a diverse group of candidates whose standing and rank is comparable (having been featured at times on the leaderboard, e.g.). Being positively biased towards candidates with a heavier load of wins, all other factors discounted but the difference in the number of wins between the rivals, the CH always chooses a contestant with a higher number of historically documented wins. So, the 2 nd win becomes a function of the 1st in a choice among contestants with 0 and 1 wins respectively, the 3rd win is built on a foundation of a comparison between contestants with 2 vs 1 wins, etc. Summa sumarum, the accrued value of a pyramid of 22 wins accumulated this way is not 22 wins, but has a worthiness of 1 win magnified to the power of 22, equaling just… 1 ! If every consequent win is in essence a throwback to a win that precedes it, riding the wave generated by the original win, its value retracts to the win that initialized this cascade of self-replicating motion. But the interesting part is that what broke the mold of non-wins initially and the force that converted 0 into 1 was a belief system of the original mover/CH who valued the merit of the name above anything else ! :slight_smile:


lol what does any of that have to do with my concerns??

I found no comfort in that post. Only more reason to want anonymity!!

Point in case:

No one will EVER convince me a tie should be broken based on how many wins someone holds. It has no bearing on the quality of the entry or its brandability and I’d be bothered to know that’s how my entry was picked over another. I’d be wondering what in the heck that has to do with the name I submitted!?!?

I’ll say it yet again, they’re not hiring us, they’re picking our brains, our past wins etc have no place in the arena in my eyes. It is simply useless info to cloud their judgment.

If you need wins behind your entries to get them noticed they’re not that great to begin with, so you should have no better shot than the next person with less wins.

FYI there is probably nothing that can be said to me to change my perspective on this. So it’s probably pointless to try. Nobody has given any valid reasons, imo, why I should change my perspective, only more reasons to stand by my belief. Just sayin…


@Chasity2ku, I believe @Vision had the best intentions mixed with her special brand of humor in her response to you, which in itself should have brought the kind of warm fuzzies we’ve known her to bring here. We call it “Visionized”


@Chasity2ku I’m with you on this one.

I don’t see why someone’s track record should be allowed to influence or distract the CH. The key is that it’s not needed, if you are good at it you can win again. What is the point of having the crowd if one contestant chances are, over time, becoming more and more ‘sure’ while for others it feels worse than buying the lottery? What we should espouse here is the collective input of the crowd, not tenure or singling out a particular experienced contestant based on something in which a new contestant is handicapped. Every participant deserves a fair chance, and their time and effort respected. In every new contest each contestants should be like a new contestant.

“Hey, look this contestant has won a lot, must be better”, feels like a service. A contest? Much less.

Is this a service or a contest? If a CH prefers to pick contestants based on resume then by all means create a New Type of ‘service’ for that. Others might rightly decide not to participate as they feel they are not as good as some of the top rankers, nothing wrong with that. But, mixing wrong things together is not wise. A contest is not a service. Something to think about.

This is also moving away from the diversity promised by crowd intelligence; crowd creativity. Can we not just have One Collective Contestants track record? Letting CHs judge based on individual track record feels to me a cop out to keep the CHs happy without a keen regard to the rest of the crowd’s time and effort. Feels even a little bit like cheating, if you think about it as a contest. And, this is not professional employment either, if it is then there would be employment contract with the CH, full information of the employer, employee rights, etc. This is a long way from that. Yet strangely I feels like it’s slowly transforming into a traditional outfit. If you bill it as a contest then you should honor that and keep it as contest-like as possible, or label it something else. Or, you can let the contest run it’s course full well, and then move on to a service.

Crowdsourcing requires a new way of thinking (yes, still new) because it is not a 1-to-1 thing, it is as it stands a whooping Contest of 200-to-1, motley contestants. The contest organizer should provide a more level playing field than this, choose inclusivity over exclusivity. For crowd’s sake.


I just had a terrible thought. What in the world did CHs do when SH first started? If they couldn’t decide between names, what were they to do with no histories to look at? OH THE HORROR…I bet they must’ve taken the names to friends, family members, and colleagues to get opinions from people in their field and lives and that have a common mind set as them. I don’t know tho, that all sounds just so ineffective. It’s much easier for them now that they can look and see a creative has won much more than the other so now they know which name suits their business better!!!

Whew…we should all feel so lucky that’s not an issue anymore!!!

Sorry…I couldn’t help myself :wink:

1 Like

See, if I was picking a name, I wouldn’t use the track record of creative to pick a name.

But I guess my question is, how far do we go with deciding what’s best for the CH? If they are using the system in this way, then clearly they want to. And we can say that it’s not the best way to make a choice, but do we actually know what the client wants better than the client does?

I’m not saying that’s is a good or essential thing, I’m saying that if the goal of the platform is to serve the CH then we have to find a middle ground between what we think is best and what the CH thinks is best.

I know she had good intentions but I feel strongly on this matter and was ready to drop it because the majority disagrees with me, and that’s fine. I’m all for bouncing ideas back and forth and I’d love to hear why everyone wants it to stay the same but I just keep getting hit with posts about how this is just how it is with no validity or real viable rebuttle behind their posts. That’s why I’m ready to drop it.

I’m looking for rebuttles that make me want to change my mind…not want anonymity even more.

1 Like

The intended message was that whenever you look at someone’s lofty resume of 22 wins, please bear in mind that sometimes it might equal just the power of 1 win that started the chain reaction :slight_smile:

1 Like

Well sometimes I’m to feeble minded for you posts. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like