Contest Feature - Feedback Requested

We are considering adding a new feature for contests where creatives will be able to see deeper information at an aggregated level regarding the types of names that a CH is liking.

For example, if a CH likes multiple names with the word “Divine”, you will be able to see that Divine is a popular keyword for that contest. In addition, you will be able to see other stats such as average length of name that were liked by CH etc.

This feature will be “Opt-in” based. In other words, if you do not opt-in to this feature, your submissions will not be included in the summary level stats. On the other hand, you will not be able to see the summary stats for other names from that contest.

Currently the contests are entirely blind, and that works well in generating original ideas. On the other hand, this feature could provide some additional insights related to the CH’s preferences that might result in more successful contests.

Before we work on building this feature, we would like feedback from our creative community. We will only pursue this if majority of creatives believe it is a good idea.


I feel you nailed this part. On one hand, it is a good idea. On the other, it isn’t.
This make me think about Youtube or social media algorithms which will try to feed you more of what it believes you “enjoy”, want, or already think. It may be nice, but it generates a “confirmation loop”, and pretty much always gives you the same type of things. It closes the openness and the discovery of things different.

Most CH may like it. I mean, usually they seem to already love names which they kind of “have in mind” according to their brief. In that regard, I think it is probably a good idea.

In theory, these “new ideas” is a great thing (and they can always happen with this system), but in practice, I feel such a system will work great for everybody. Personally, I love the “opt-in part” and how you described it works.

Overall, on my end, I think it’s a good idea :+1:

1 Like

From the perspective of cultivating a hive mind and delivering the best possible name to clients, trend data works well.

From an individual perspective, it could be disappointing if someone comes up with an original angle in a contest, and then others piggy back on that original angle and end up stealing the contest from the person who came up with the idea.

As a compromise, maybe there could be some consolation prize – in dollars, coins, or points – for the creative who originally submitted the winning keyword, if their name isn’t ultimately chosen.


I am totally against it. This innovation negates the work of creativity. If a contest holder likes one name, but then a whole ton of similar names are dumped on him, this discredits the creative who was the first to be offered a unique name. It is good that you consult with us and offer this service only for those who want to. I like that if I don’t consciously include it, it means that my entries will not be included in the statistics. But I am also against because the customer may refuse the competition altogether if the favorite name begins to be cloned on a large scale.


I think I like the idea.

The negatives I can think of are:

  1. The CH would suddenly get 100s of entries with the word Divine - but then that is no different to a CH saying in comments they like the word Divine.

  2. If a CH wants the word Divine and is presented with 500 entries containing the word Divine, you can be 99% assured they will not pick a name with Divine in it. Divine overload will put them off the word.

  3. A creative might be able to figure out what the top ranked entry is and go and register it (if it’s available) - but you would deal with anyone that would do this I’m sure.

The opt out is a great idea. I think most people actually would opt out after a while.

I would like to see it tested to see how it works out.

Thanks for asking.


Will not be opting in. Just my position.

I feel like that may trigger overload.

CH goes into contest loving bloom.
Ai recommends.
All entries contain bloom.
Direction change.
Rinse and repeat.

I think it may just lead to more brief flips and contests being extended/abandoned.


Hi @grant , I’m with @Edukar and @littodino . A big, BIG NO!! Totally against the idea. SH spent years and time in order to safeguard creative’s original work from being disclosed to others. Now, it would be like giving hints and answers to students as they work on a school test.

Plus finding the ‘right’ word is work, and part of the satisfying angle for the creative. And I’m thinking of keyword overload.


In theory it sounds great, but I have a feeling this will only add to more abandoned contests. Over the years I’ve have noticed that many of the contests where the CH has mentioned a keyword or two…they eventually come back and say no more entries with this word. One of two things happen. They either pick a name without any keywords they have asked for or the contest is abandoned.
This I believe will stifle creativity. If a creative wants keywords all they have to do is look up the industry/business and do a little research. I personally will opt out of this one.



Generic pointers: Summary-level trends like average name length, name type, and theme(s) could work. If one could select which pointers to opt in for, I’d choose these.

Keyword pointers: Sounds good in theory, but I wouldn’t opt in for this because the negatives outweigh the positives. As others have pointed out: lower “creative” output, less variety for clients, more overload and fatigue for clients, more contest extensions, more abandoned contests, higher possibility of sabotage.

In my opinion, the decision to share keywords (or not) should be made by the client. Maybe SquadHelp can make clients aware of that choice by adding a feature that prompts them to share keywords that are working— by themselves if they want to .

Suggestions to help make contests more successful:

  • Client-side: How about adding features that nudge clients to take helpful or necessary actions throughout the contest? E.g: nudging them to guarantee their contests for better participation, share budgets for domains, share preferred domain add-ons, keep exact entries confidential as creatives can’t see each other’s entries, rate entries, stop extending contests beyond a certain point, pick a winner within a specified time frame, and so on.
  • Creative-side: How about a feature that notifies creatives if an entry they want to submit was previously submitted by someone else and already rejected by the client? A creative can still choose to submit the entry to that contest or just channel their time and energy towards a fresh idea. I think this will be helpful to creatives and clients.

A test of the feature would be worthwhile with A/B testing to see if it improves successful contest completion. However, I am not really on board with the idea for reasons others have already stated.

I would rather see SH further develop the CH side of the platform to:

  1. Find a way to FORCE ratings. We all are much more enthusiastic if we get ratings and feedback.
  2. Find a better way to get CHs to respond to questions - maybe make it easier for them to navigate to the questions. I always have felt that many CHs just never figure out how to get to the message board.
  3. Reduce overload on CHs… over 2K entries per contest is absolutely too much.

And rethink the rules in place for creatives in terms of communication with the CH. Stop the endless “are you still considering seen but not rated.” Add more ability for us to ask pointed questions. We have been so limited in what we can actually say to a CH because it might be construed as trying to get on the good side of the CH. But there must be ways to improve public communication with the CH so they will actually read and answer.

On SH branding team contests: We expect and need MUCH more than the team reveals to us. Whenever I see the copy/paste message that says something like: here’s a new note: we aren’t changing anything, I cringe. It means nothing. No direction. And the ratings are very slow.


I would like to give an example of why this is problematic.
I worked on a contest that I could have literally created hundreds of names for. That happens rarely but it really hit my hot button.

Then the CH/Branding team said: We want these specific types of entries. So I subbed those specific types of entries, following the brief exactly. I gave reasons why I chose those words. End result: All but 1 were 100% rejected out of hand and the other OTRT but gave me no feedback as to why. AT MINIMUM, we should get OTRT for giving exactly what they asked for with explanations on the OTRT ones that tell us why it is not at least a like or why likes are not loves.

I quit subbing to that contest even though I could have subbed hundreds of names. (Well up to my limit, which isn’t hundreds).

If the goal with this idea is to improve entries, that is how it could be done.

  1. After 1,000 unrated entries, force the CH to return with more detailed guidance and/or direction.

I personally would opt out of this feature. First, I feel it would generate too many similar ideas. Second, you often see contests where only one or two entries have been given a love it rating. The person who submitted those ideas clearly has an advantage that could be lost if details about those names were revealed.
I don’t mind if the feature is added, as long as we can opt out if desired.


For the same reasons as @ALDaisy1 @Edukar @littodino - I would opt out of this feature. Thank you for requesting our feedback.


I’m with @Edukar & @LauraE. Strongly against.

  1. What if these multiple names containing the word Divine are all from one single Creative?
    Taking this word out with AI techno tweezers and placing its clones on the conveyor belt for hive mind packaging would devaluate what’s human, original and demanding about creating.

  2. What if we decide to opt-out and Contest Holder, expecting more Divine submissions, sees our non-Divine entries (we’re unable to see, that Divine is the way to go), and blocks us for not following the guidelines?

  3. Do we really have to surrender the name in order to have statistics like average length of name?

Thank you guys for being open to hear our thoughts.


When this feature will be visible for users who opted-in AFTER CH rates names in a timely fashion AND when this feature will become visible ONLY after some number of entries, for example 100/200, then why not?

This could only work really well if there are mechanics acting against situations greatly described in here by the folks.

Of course, we’re also back with the issue I and many others have rased over the years - the maximum amount of entries in total for contest.

  • We’ll we ever get to a stage where EVERY change of the brief = mandatory & automatic 10% rased of the final award (explained this years ago)?


1 Like

@grant I just wanted to thank you for asking us for our input on this purposed change. I appreciate it very much.


I have noticed that many CHs who specific keywords in the original brief, or in later posted messages, usually or very often turn around and post that they now no longer want to see entries with that keyword. They then mark all entries with that keyword as NTY and move on. That’s usually my signal to move on too, as frequently these contests with this kind of on-again, off-again changes are abandoned.


The contest could be automatically paused and a notification sent to the CH


I definately feel we need more insight and it would cut through the submission gridlock ch experience… not sure on algorythm.