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.