How Would You Improve The Site? (Cont'd)


I respectfully disagree, because:

  • If you submit 100 entries that make it to the shortlist, I’m sure the CH will not mind! :slight_smile:
  • If splitting the prize money according to the number of high rated entries increases the amount of entries, I’m sure the same can be said about trying to win a contest… If you are on the right track and hit a few high ratings, that WILL impel you to submit more entries (at least that’s what I do), not because of a future prize split, but because you want to win the contest and the more high ratings you get, bet more chances you have to win, right?
  • If a CH feels inundated with (low quality) entries from a Creative, he can simply block that Creative.
  • On the other hand, if the splits reward the number of quality entries, that will motivate the Creatives to work harder and to invest more time to come up not only with more entries, but with better ones.
    Let’s say a creative reads the brief, submits 5 entries and gets a shortlist. He is happy with that and just lets it be. Another creative also submits 5 entries and gets one “Like it” rating. He goes “back to the drawing board” and comes up with a few more suggestions he submits. Of those new entries, the CH shortlists 1. Then this creative goes back and does further investigation and comes up with some more suggestions he submits. The CH likes his work and shortlists a couple more entries. The first creative has 1 shortlist and the second now has 3 shortlisted entries. Do you think these two creative deserve the same reward, if it comes to a split?!


I believe your examples are unconvincing. The universe is a strange thing. One creative can have only one loved entry and the CH can choose it as a winner than another creative, which has 10 loves. We never know which entry the customer would prefer, so I am satisfied with the current fee distribution system. In addition, my colleague jackieheraty is right that some creatives will want to increase their percentile if the customer turns out to be very loving


I agree with you, not to mention splitting the prize $ between many many loves (multiple loves) by one creative would amount to nearly nothing for each.


I consider the current prize split a bit too “socialist” for my taste: everyone (who has highest ratings) gets the same, regardless of their amount of said highest ratings (which in most cases are a reflex of the creative’s hard work and effort). To split the reward in a proportional way, according to the amount of highest ratings would be fairer and more “capitalist”, because the reward would generally match closer the Creative’s effort and work.


DN, I have a suggestion for you. Track your splits for a while. Compare what you get to your method. I think you will find that you will actually lose money because you will lose other splits you would have gotten otherwise/or less money. This system works compared to the old system and I tracked it for a long time. Squadhelp probably considered the method you are talking about when they changed it. They told us we would receive more in splits with the method they adopted and they were right. :smiley:


Ok lets say there are 10 creatives with each 1 to 5 shortlist, then the prize is $100, so u mean $100 : 50 shortlists = $2. Then creative will get $2 x number of shortlists? Thats very low and i dont think thats a good idea. Your idea might be boomerang for you friend.


so agreed with Commulinks, definitely will get very less money. Leave it alone as it is. Beside we know sometimes or many times 1 creative which has only 1 love it won over creatives that have 5 to 10 loves it.So quantity sometimes doesnt matter.


yes they deserve the same reward, since many times one shortlist can win over 5 to 10 shortlists.


As to my latest find, when you buy a wholesale domain registered by SquadHelp, there’s no deadline on ‘‘accepting’’ the deal as a buyer and making the payment, whatever that means (confirm by email/push a button somewhere?!). I suppose that has to be changed. I see no need for more than 24 hours to confirm such a payment, I guess. If by any chance buyer misses email confirmation or whatever action is needed, you can just push the ‘‘buy’’ button again and this time confirm it in time.


Here is Grants response the last time this question was raised.


Yayyy @AbleBrands :star_struck:


I can’t say anything about the old method of splitting the prize money because when I got to SH the current method was already in use, @Commulinks . And I must say I’m not unhappy with it. :slight_smile: But even good things can be improved and this sharing of ideas can be (I hope) a step in that direction.
I think the two points @grant raises to defend the current split structure are not valid and this is why:
1 - The danger of having creatives submit a large amount of similar entries once they hit a shortlist is a false issue. After all, in order to win the contest, can’t creatives do this ALREADY? I mean, when I strike a shortlist, I will always submit other similar variations, in order to try to submit that “special one” (regardless of future splits)! Don’t you guys do this already? :slight_smile: I mean, don’t you want to win?! Or do you just stop submitting when one entry makes it to the shortlist? So, if this is a really issue, maybe SH should set a limit: “only 1 shortlist per creative” or “once you get a shortlist, you are not able to submit any more entries”, which don’t make any sense, right? Also, Grant says “some creatives” could submit a large amount of entries, when one gets shortlisted. And this sounds like it’s unfair that some would submit a lot of entries similar to the one that was shortlisted, while other creatives might not do it… But nothing stops EVERY creative who gets a shortlist to do the same! And, again, if we keep submitting entries that the CH shortlists isn’t THAT the purpose of the game, in order to win?!
2 – The second point is completely a false issue in my opinion, because if it’s true that some creatives might receive “smaller chunks” it’s obvious that some creatives will receive larger chunks, hence rewarding the larger amount of entries that got high ratings. After all, the total prize is not decreased and the split would always be among the highest ratings creatives. For example, if currently a $100 prize would be split in $50/$50, with the proportion of highest ratings we could have a split of $20 (for a creative with 1 shortlist) and $80 (for a creative with 4 shortlists). So it’s evident that “smaller chunks” is only one side of the coin! :smile:
I’m sure most of the times I would eventually receive some split I would be like this first creative and receive a smaller chunk (not having English as my native language has its toll). But I still think it would be fairer to reward a larger amount of quality entries (or at least a larger amount of entries that came close to what the CH wanted) with a larger portion of the split.
As for Grant’s last paragraph, I would say I agree with the last part: “reward creatives who came closest to what the CH was looking for”. And a way to do just that is to have proportional splits because “it is safe to assume” a creative who submits 15 “On the right track” came closer to what the CH was looking for, than another creative who submitted 1 “On the right track”.
Please understand that, like I said in the beginning, I’m not unhappy with the current system. But this is just food for thought and I always think that if we can move in a fairer direction (not necessarily an equalitarian one) it’s always a good thing. Rewarding the hardest work and the highest amount of high rating entries is a step in that direction, in my opinion. However, I will not make a big fuss out of this (too late? :smile: ) and “rest my case”.


Creativity does not obey statistics. This is my personal aphorism. I repeat once again that a creative that has 15 shorts has no more and no less chance of victory than one who has only one short


Two points to make:
1.). I have won two contests where there were many shortlisted, loves & likes, yet my No Thank You won one contest and my ONRT won another.
You can never assume that a shortlisted name will be chosen as a winner. Also, if the contest is split, it’s abandoned, so they didn’t want any entry.
2.). If we change the process to what your saying, what happens in a $100 contest with 100+ creatives having shortlisted names? How do you split that. The first hundred get a penny and then what about the others?


I understand your POV. I also feel that the current system is quite fair, considering these are abandoned contests to begin with. I don’t believe the system is broken. I have felt this system is something I can always count on. I don’t have to figure things out to know if it is doing what it supposed to do. I know, if I am shortlisted and the contest goes abandoned, I get a fair share.


In response to the topic by @DNFront and those responding to the discussion:

I have to weigh in on this and it is something that I brought up when we were first discussing it, to which Able has kindly provided Grant’s reply from.

Grant has said it best as well as many other people here. If someone has five shortlists compared to others that have only one there is several issues with this. First of all what if some of the ones that had only one – what if that was their only submission? Yet, the person that has five has amounted 25 to get to that five. Couldn’t it then be argued that, at least in theory, it took the person with five substantially more tries and tossing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks versus the creative that may have put a lot more time and effort into that one and that’s why they only submitted one?

So, it’s possible that the person with one may have spent more time than the one that amounted five. A lot of us that have been here for a number of years can attest to this very scenario being HIGHLY possible if not actually probable most of the time. There are many of us that don’t win as often just because we believe in quality over quantity. Actual meaning taken from research versus the first thing that comes to mind. Granted, some of us out of that group do a bit of both. We may do one or two immediate word association type of entries, but then really dig our heels in and do several hours worth of research just for ONE entry. So, it’s quite possible that the person with one or two versus the one with twenty five (and them both being on the shortlist) – that the person with one versus five, could have spent a lot more time.

This is because, going back to Grant and others rebuttals to you, that once someone is shortlisted they have the ability to submit a lot more. Some take advantage of word association and submit a lot of others with just simple few letter differences or one word differences or even extension differences. Many of us can argue that this is a good way to establish a lot more shortlists. Because, what sense would it make to be a CH and love one but not like at all another (just because of the differences of a couple letters as long as the meaning does not change)? It wouldn’t make sense in most cases. So, as it was stated … it can and has been taken advantage of in the past. Not necessarily in a negative way. And not that this is a bad thing because, like you said, the CH is getting something at the time that they think they want.

However, one main thing to remember is that that’s what the CH wanted at the time, but yet they abandoned. So apparently they didn’t want it, did they? Secondly, we are CREATIVES, that’s a key word. Offering minor changes for five very similar entries that all end up being shortlisted, just because they’re all just minor variations of the original, isn’t as creative as coming up with a completely new idea and chancing it.

So, why be rewarded for that possibility when it does happen and not necessarily purposefully but kinda purposefully? Meaning: whether it be because we want to offer options so the CH can have what they want and how they want it, because we want better chances of winning, or a combination of the two. There are some that do it just to do it to improve their own chances and there’s nothing wrong with that as we’re all here for different reasons. Just as most of us aren’t as greedy as we may seem. With this, we truly have taken a passion into helping these CHs, because we know that ideas have to come from somewhere, and if we can just be instrumental-- it means a lot.

Most of us have already realized this isn’t a lucrative financial provider, so the caring about those we are helping is the driving force even with weeks, months, or even a year or better of dry spells. We’re here because we care and there’s still chances for us but better the CH may be inspired by us. Contests shift directions all the time just because of the ideas we give, so we are helping. But both situations and scenarios are entirely possible and the amount of time can be the same but effort can be argued to be vastly different between the two.

Finally, and last but not least, I understand that there are scenarios where the creative that has five shortlists versus the one; has five completely individual and original entries. But again, at that point, you can’t argue who put more time and effort into it. Because it’s quite possible for me to research and come up with five out of several entries that get shortlisted, for instance, when you spent three hours researching just for your one when I spent three hours and managed to come up with a few more. I may have come up with a few more in the same time but that doesn’t mean it took me more effort than you.

Also, the effort and time that it would take for SH to make this a completely fair process and to figure out who actually worked harder would be financially impossible because of the man hours and staff it would take to individualize algorithms and do research and so on. When we already sit on abandons for two or three months sometimes as it is, this also would make the process even longer. It would drain SH and make a lot of us more frustrated, especially when it finally comes to light that there is no real way, whatsoever, to determine that the creative with five out more time and effort into theirs versus those that had one. Everyone works differently and has a different process added to the above that some people just do minor variations and really at that point aren’t doing much more work but good for them that they hit a streak.

Either way, to be fair, this is the system that has been concluded with and it is as fair as it’s going to be because at least everyone that did resonate is getting something.

Edited to add: sorry if grammar or spelling for this post isn’t the greatest as I am using my phone and it’s harder for me to keep track of thought process with something so long and involved. I hope that it can be understood, though, and at least given some substantial thought as I put a lot of work into trying to convey the points I have made. I love DN that you are trying to offer food for thought. But this is my food for thought in response and I hope that it at least can be a pondering point as I have pondered your ideas as well. And while I understand the effect you’re trying to reach, and agree that it would be nice if applicable. But, the system we have actually works and is as fair as it can be without so much more work and frustration on our parts as well as SH too.


One thing I find frustrating on this site is the assumption (when made) that more entries means that more work or effort has been made. I don’t think this is often the case.


I had rested my case, but let me add one final point. The current split rewards the creatives who presumably came closer to what the CH wanted, because he gave them the higher ratings. If this is valid (and I think it is), then I think the following questions point in the direction I defend. Regardless of time, work and effort put into coming up with the entries (debatable), wouldn’t you agree that the creative that offered the CH more options that came closer to want he wanted should be proportionally rewarded for achieving that? Isn’t it all about helping the CH? Isn’t it valuable for the CH to have more options to choose from (either very similar or very varied)? Shouldn’t that be rewarded? And even if he abandons the contest, does that invalidate the initial purpose that drove the creatives to follow the brief and submit as many entries as possible that could come close to the said brief and provide the best help to the CH?


No. I do not think more shortlists equals more effort. if someone submits 200 entries and gets 10 shortlisted, and another submits 5 and has 5 shortlisted, I feel the second Creative is actually more accurately interpreting the brief. But with your suggestion, the first Creative would receive more. That’s illogical.


My answer to your question is no. Here’s why: having 5 or 10 shortlists means that the CH initially loved the names, only to find out they are trademarked or do not resonate with their target audience through testing, or they don’t have social media handles available…or or or…

An abandoned contest means a fail for everyone who participated and everyone who was shortlisted. It means something went wrong. It means we all need to do better.

Coming “close” to what they wanted is not a win if they felt so bad they left without a name. Abandons are lost customers and because the money sits there, SH had to come up with a way to split the award fairly, given we all let the CH down.