How should we select winners for unawarded contests?


@Dan, seriously, I don’t think deciding winner by SH really works…
Either the money should be equally distributed between the top trenders of that contest (unawarded one) or can be distribited between all the participants or third should not be picked a winner at all.
I don’t think any consideration is being given to those names which have been taken (don’t know about others but atleast not happened with me)…
Your stand is, what if a creative self registered a domain and claims his/her domain taken? agreed…but if you rely on that CH was not involved by investigating/tracking IP and other details, in a same way a creative can be investigated.
(Sorry, if you feel my tone is little harsh!)


it depends what the name is - some could easily be thought of and bought by other people ,that have never heard of Squadhelp.

I dont think a bought name with no proof should be judged any differently to any other


Thanks for the feedback @mauryamannsingh.

It is our policy to not award a contest on the basis of domain registration, unless we have reasonable proof that the name was registered by the CH. If we have no way to establish who registered the domain, we can not use that information to award the contest. This is in place to be fair to all contestants and minimize any potential gaming. It costs $8-$10 to register a domain name, and having such a policy will lead to a different type of gaming, where some contestants might start registering their own entries with a hope to with the $200 award. I am not suggesting that the contestants are here to game the system, but having such a policy can certainly open the door for that kind of behavior, and therefore we can not have such a policy in place. There is no way to use the IP address to determine whether a creative registered a domain name on GoDaddy.


Don’t know …but still have apprehensions…


@jose, i totally agree with you that anybody can think of similar names, specially in my case, i am not expert in creative naming means misspelled/blending etc. …if you have ever seen my names these were(are) pure simple 2 English words.
But at the same time would like to say “why nobody else had thought the name untill I thought??”


@mauryamannsingh There might still be problems if the prize money get shared by all who participated. We could see a sharp increase in the amount of contestants, all wanting a chance to get at the crumbs without adding any real value. More contestants means more entries means more overwhelm to CHs, and we know that is one of the reasons CHs throw in the towel. All over again!

I don’t quite like the idea of sharing among top trenders, throughout a contest life-cycle there could be several CH persons even before the final decision maker steps in. A CH is seldom just one person. And even if we get only one CH person, some CH are just much happier to award 4-5 stars at the beginning due to first timer excitement, later they might go “What was I thinking?!” :slight_smile: CHs can also seek opionion of friends or family and they might go “What were YOU thinking?!” :slight_smile:

BTW, I’m aware it is not a perfect solution, but I think letting SH choose is the better and safer, least complicated solution.

That said, not awarding at all, could work. At the end of the month it gets shared among all on the Leaderboard. There obviously will still be some that are not happy. :grimacing:


@Front, in an unawarded contest, CH doesn’t come in picture, so what he would think or takes advice of anybody, is irrelevant!
I still stick to my 3 solutions.

To be very frank, i tell you my reactions when a contest being awarded by CH or SH.

by CH: oh! why i couldn’t able to think the same!

By SH: oh! Mine was even better!


I agree with everything you said, Front. Contestants who have been competing for awhile have an expectation of what ratings should mean. First-time CHs are going with their first reactions. These definitely could change as more entries come in, or as they get other opinions. Sometimes they don’t downgrade to be nice, or just don’t think about the earliest entries.


Further to my point, I feel it little unfair to those creatives who do not have sufficient points to mark either one or 2 of their unrated entries as Best entry and how their entries can be visible?


@mauryamannsingh. I didn’t mean it that way. I just think top trenders should not be the single way to decide on where the prize goes. It’s complicated and my head hurts, so I’ll leave it at that :wink:


There are way to many variables in each contest, Such as did the CH rate all the way through the contest, How many entries did they rate or not rate etc… More weight definitely should be given to higher star ratings than those with low or unrated (unless as above the CH did not rate through the contest) The new system is way better than the old of just picking top trender especially in those contests where the top rating is a 3


I agree with @mauryamannsingh. I’ve been participating in naming contests on one other platform for a while now and there rules for the same issue are way more simple and fair/clear. They just split the prize equally among all top rated contestants presuming that each of them had equal chances to win. I’ve been among those top rated - not awarded on several occasions and getting 10$ or 20$ for my effort felt way better than not getting anything at all.

Also I’m a bit confused about overall policy of SH. Usually CH choices are respected no matter what they are.
But when things come to unawarded contests things suddenly change 180 degrees. Suddenly CH choices won’t matter anymore. If he decided to rate some entries 5* it doesn’t matter anymore, because another entry rated 4* or 3*, but marked by the contestant as a best one can win. If CH chose to abandon the contest early having rated only a small part of entries, it’s his choice, but it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s his contest, his business/product, his money, his decisions, his rates, but all of that doesn’t matter anymore, because anyone can jump in with “best entry” and win.

I often try to guess a personality of the CH by the way he provided information for the brief and by the way he communicates both privately and publicly. Especially when it’s clear that the CH is a decision maker.
I think what kind of the person that is and what name would meet HIS needs best. But then suddenly the decision making person changes and is someone (SH) totally different. For me it feels the same as if changing the brief after the contest is over and right before selecting the winner.

And the whole process of SH selecting the winning entry is quite obscure to us. Is it one person responsible? Or do they have all team voting? Do they consult with any marketing specialists? Do they google the selected name? Do they do a research of name trends in that particular business? Do they…how do they…?

I think, that only when no entries were rated SH could step in and choose a winner from “best ones”. On other occasions CH choices should be respected whatever they were.


I’ve been going back and looking at SH’s recent picks in the best entries and I’m struggling to find much to base your arguments on, other than emotion.


We appreciate that there is not a single solution that can work perfectly. What we have in place is based on significant input from this group and we have spent a great deal of effort in thinking about every single scenario before arriving at this.

Our goal obviously is to minimize the times where we have to step in and select a winner. It is important to eliminate the conditions that lead to abandoned contests and several of our changes in policies and features have been with a goal towards reducing the number of abandoned contests. However when the CH has walked away from a contest, we feel it is important for us to step in and apply a holistic criteria to evaluate the entries. More often than not, if a contest has 5 star or 4 star rated entries, we end up selecting a winner from that group. If you check the winners from the contests where SH has selected a winner, you will find that an overwhelming majority of winners were those that were rated a 5 star or 4 star by the CH. However, we believe it is important that others have the opportunity to highlight their best work, especially if they feel that they had a great name and it was somehow overlooked by the CH.

I don’t recall us ever stating that the CH’s choices do not matter once they abandoned the contest. What we have in place actually gives higher weightage to the CH’s choices, but it also offers an opportunity to those who felt that their submissions got ignored due to contest abandonment.

While I appreciate the feedback, we do not intend to change the winner selection process for abandoned contests.


Thank you for your answers. I’m still a bit confused. If there are several entries rated by CH 5*, SH most likely choose a winner from those? If there are no 5* rated entries, only then SH are considering all 4* rated entries and choosing one of those, right? But the part that confuses me the most is “best entries”. No one knows what unrated names CH would have liked.
Quite often (according to forum posts from other contestants and my own experience) it happens that our entries rated as best scores 2-3* while others, that did not seem that good, score 4-5*. Maybe it definitely was a good name, but too close to competitors, or would have represented CH business in a bit different way than he wanted. There might be many reasons. That’s why if unrated entry won the contest while there were entries rated 5* or 4* that would confuse me.


chs dont always hang around to rate everyone , so getting rated 5 at the beginning of a contest would be considered lucky …an those who never got a rating should be judged alongside them by giving them a best entry


I see you point here, but it’s still confusing. As if you are participating in one contest and then suddenly bam it’s another contest with another decision making person and different rules. Or maybe I am just too much used to the other platforms for naming contest rules :slight_smile:

On the other hand, looking at the poll results in this thread, majority voted for “other ideas”.


@EliCreative, Do you realize that based on stats gathered from similar crowd-sourcing naming sites, in over 50% (the exact number can be anywhere from 60-70%) of all contests/cases the winning name emerged from the list of the first 100 or so submitted names?
So, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE QUALITY of the received submissions for the duration of a contest, the ORDER IN WHICH THE NAMES ARE SUBMITTED would play a disproportionately decisive role in the selection process, with the FIRST 100 NAMES contributing to the constant genetic pool from which the bulk of creativity would emerge victorious ? This anomaly is repeated across the board due to CH susceptibility to a cognitive bias rooted in psychological and neuro-physiological parameters of information-processing that shape our perception/comprehension abilities.

Furthermore, gathered from a data aggregate referenced by several naming sites (my own preliminary, not-fully-analyzed in depth for buyer participation, contest duration, prize amount, user numbers, number of entries, etc. data), the next in a succession of biases would be particularly observed either in contests that are excluded from the above or in those experiencing several guide-line/directional changes throughout. The bias will be fermented by a seemingly innocuous at first sight praxis of showing the most recent entries first, which would in turn be responsible for large chunks of unseen/unrated entries being stuck somewhere in the nowhere land near the ‘middle’ point of a contest duration in high-count contests… This in turn, would create a bias toward the latter day submissions having a greater winning chance. .


That’s an interesting point of view, thank you for sharing.


@Vision That’s an interesting point of view and gathered data, thank you for sharing.