Point blank … to me, it seems your option in many cases would mean that there would be some creatives that would not receive rewards at all. At least that’s how the math checks for me in the cases where there are a LOT of shortlists, which actually happen quite a bit. Because there are many many many cases as it is right now that CHs shortlist more than six entries which is the recommended. There’s been discussions of this but that is not here nor there and a topic for another day. However, to this topic … There have been times in the past where there have been 12 or more people to split awards between. If SH were still to do a split to at least show some fairness but follow your direction, if you and a few other people had five entries or more and got a certain amount for each one or even a certain percentage, there would be people that would not get any at all. And because there are many reasons that you having ten or more and others having less being debatable on whether you deserving that or not … it would actually be less fair in many of the cases. As Clinks just said, an abandoned contest is a fail … for whatever reason. You didn’t achieve anything … and we didn’t either. Just because you had more, you still didn’t achieve anything. But, there was money that is non-returnable as per the SH guaranteed policy so SH decided to at least give incentive for at least doing what you could do and reaching some level of resonation for whatever reason. We can’t be mind-readers, nor can SH. No one can know in an abandoned contest why one creative may have more likes than others. As mentioned, there can be MANY reasons other than just because you offered better, or they were happier, or whatever. If that were the case, instead of abandoning CHs always ALWAYS have the option of contacting SH and saying, “I’ve not been able to find anything that fits EXACTLY what I want or need bit this creative did come the closest and would like them to be awarded even though I will not be using ANY entries”. But, that did not happen. The contest was abandoned. So like it or not, no one really achieved anything. But some did spark some kind of resonance. Hence the shortlist. But beyond that, nothing can really be speculated because if your entries were that favorable, there are options that could have been taken advantage of or choices made, but that didn’t happen. We should be thankful that we, at that point, resonated at all and are at least getting something. If it’s split equally … that is FAIR, no other assumptions can be made beyond that.
I appreciate everyone’s opinion as it also helps me look at this through different eyes. Up to this point very few arguments have proven to be really valid, in my point of view, as I it is clear to me many folks use exceptions and uncommon situations to justify their point. But I have “rested my case” and will not go further into this.
However, you brought up a related point that I don’t agree with and would like to share why. You said that when a CH abandons a contest “we all let the CH down”. I think this an invalid assumption. There may be many reasons for a CH to abandon a contest. And I’m sure some of those may lay on the CH’s side: failing to be clear in their brief, shifting directions during the contest and failing to update the brief, not communicating clearly with creatives, not understanding the contest process, not having their expectations met regarding the system/platform, becoming overwhelmed with the amount of entries, failing to provide adequate feedback and steering, etc, etc. Also, wouldn’t it be at least strange that hundreds (!) of creatives ALL failed the mark and there is no responsibility on the CH’s side?! It seems to me it is not safe to assume that we all have failed the CH when he abandons a contest. We all (most of us) worked with what was given to us and we all (most of us) gave our best according to that. This is not necessarily a collective fail on our side, I think.
I think the current system is fair.
Who remembers the random auto pick out of the loves and likes? First SH picked a winner, people complained it’s unfair and claimed favoritism. Then an algorithm picked three names and boo-boo to the rest of you. I had 4 loves out of the 10 but I didn’t get a split. People didn’t like it.
Now shortlists were added. Made it simpler.
Let us not forget…the CH can still ask for a refund if the are unable to use any names.
They can also come back after the contest was awarded and pick their winner, in which case all cha-chings would be taken back and the winner credited.
As far as your statement about lots of entries from one creative…this in itself can overwhelm a CH and is one reason they abandon contests. Hence the new system of entry limits.
Again a shortlisted name means nothing until the contest is over. My on the right track entries have won contests over shortlisted entries, do don’t put too much stock in your shortlist. Alot of times a CH will downgrade everyone to a no thank you before they pick their winner.
I think premium name submissions’ ratings should carry no weight against us and be the only submissions that allow ONLY POSITIVE weight to our percentiles – if any at all. I say this because CHs seemingly cannot choose whether premium names will be taken or not. Or they don’t know how to choose whether they want them or not – and they also don’t know that they should include in brief or dash comments that they don’t wish to have them if they don’t want them.
Because of the new allowances of letting us not only submit our own premium names but allowing creatives to submit other creatives’ names – many of us are doing so. But, that creates a problem considering that at the time most of us don’t even know if the CH is open to the idea of a premium domain. So we are just operating in the dark and doing what we can to help the CHs. This is a problem, however, if the CH doesn’t want premium domains at all and decides to downrate every single premium entry just because it is premium. That’s a bit unfair considering it’s a bit rude to ask in dashboard if the CH is open to premiums, and we usually have nothing to go off of on wether they want them or not.
The downrates can be impactful to our percentiles when it’s an option that is there for us and that we have no control over or knowledge whether we should take the option or not. So, my suggestion is, remove the ability for downrates on premium submissions ONLY to impact our overall percentiles. Posive ratings can carry the same weight that they would normally, however, because this shows that not only did you strike resonance but you did so with a premium name – so it deserves to be rewarded.
I realize this can create a problem of people feeling free to submit a lot because it won’t negatively impact them. So my suggested fix for this would be to limit how many premiums that each creative can submit either at a time or per contest. And an even better fix would be to make it a tier system based upon the contest award limit. Example: $100-$150 contests allow 2 premium submissions per creative (either at a time – until those are rated-- or per contest completely), $200-$250 contests allow 4 premium submissions per creative (either at a time – until those are rated-- or per contest completely), $300-$500 contests allow 5 premium submissions per creative (either at a time – until those are rated-- or per contest completely), $500+ contests allow 6 premium submissions per creative (either at a time – until those are rated-- or per contest completely).
A lot of letters: 0)
So they say when a large text is tiring. You have proposed a practical solution for entering premium names for the client. But the solution has already been implemented by the SH team. Each creative can offer a certain number of premium domains in the contest(from one to three, if I’m not mistaken). But the main problem of reducing the percentile, if the client is not ready to accept premium domains at all, will not be solved this way. I think, programmatically, it’s necessary to do so, if the client says “No, thank you,” the percentile reduction should concern the one who offered, and not the one to whom the premium domain belongs.
I will support you in the fact that to decrease in percentile due to the fact that CH against premium domains in general - this should be prohibited
I don’t think there should be a percentile reduction at all for anyone submitting the premium domain names – when there is no way for any of us to fairly know whether a CH wants or doesn’t want premium name suggestions. If we’re firing off in the dark and have no way to know if the CH will accept the premium domain suggestions or not and then get downrated just because it’s a premium name – at that point it’s not about quality and ability (of which has been implied many times that ratings are supposed to be reflective of) and therefore should not be factored against us in affecting our percentile scores.
Unfortunately, we do not know the exact percentile calculation algorithm. Therefore, we discuss these aspects here. The SH team always listens to the opinions of creatives, I hope our discussion is not in vain.
Idea about number of entries per contest
Extremely simple, promoting (I guess as it should be) Tier A Creatives.
Before every CH starts a contest, they buy a package.
A package, which fits the prize for us (minus 10%, but I guess CH’s still don’t know about it) and other options from SH.
Depending on the choosen package, there’s an projected number of entries to CH’s so that they will have an idea how many ideas might come to them.
Make that number clear and restrict.
If the cheapest package costs 199$ with 90 dollars for us, CH gets - I don’t know what’s the actual number here is - 100-300 ideas. Whenever the contest reaches 300 ideas, it gets automatically closed and CH then decides if she/he is happy with it or not.
If not, she/he can open up the contest again, but only after the award is increased to the level of next package.
The process could be repeated in this one, simple way.
Of course, we would have to finally figure out how many entries Tier A and the rest of SH can enter.
My idea here:
Tier A: 5-10 entries
Everybody else: 1 entry
On SH side, it promotes creatives who are simply active.
CH will be - I feel - more resposible about the clarity of the brief (so many stuff have been said about it, yet still, a lot of contests gets multiple brief updates or ground changes of direction) with a clear way which will make them pay close attention to what they are putting out.
Simple, clear idea, with some mathematics to figure it out.
Hopefully it would put an end to contests with 3000-5000 entries.
@grant any feedback on this?
Really constructive offer! Responsibilities and limitations should not only be with creatives. If the CH wants more entries - let him pay more money. It is quite logical.
I’m afraid this idea is utopian, in view of the fact that contests, in this case, have the prospect of turning into a competition among creators “who managed to take part, he was lucky”. As a result, the customer may risk getting a bunch of “trash”, instead of logical and thoughtful options. The worst of the results is the rapid loss of reputation by the site.
But Kacper’s idea seems to me most worthwhile. I watched the latest contests - about 200 creatives take part in them, of which about a hundred with A Thier status. Therefore, you can not worry about the reputation, we can not have a priori bad entries, especially after cleaning a lot of creatives. It can limit $ 100 contest to 500 entries, and $ 200-300 to 1,000 entries.
Well, nobody should expect to win every single contest with one entry, all the time. From SH POV, I think it’s great to keep creatives active. Second thing is clear limits also for Tier A how many entries we can submit at the every stage of the contest. Coming to think about it again, I think 5 entries will do us justice, compared with 1 entry from non-Tier A members. In this way in every contest there would definetly be multiple participants. And all of the creatives WILL HAVE TO THINK before they submit something.
Of course, we discuss here stuff and I’m not saying my idea here is the greatest ever, but I think we need to do something in this direction, putting more clear resposibility & effort on clients side from us. I can’t imagine somebody changing the brief ten times and expect milion entries for 90$.
I haven’t been paying much attention, I guess, to the number of entries contests are getting now. I do wish/hope that SH would start by doing something about creatives who submit hundreds of names to one contest and deal with that individually for a while. It is really REALLY excessive. I don’t really know what the “right” limitation should be, I just know 100+ is definitely too many. I have had times when a CH kept encouraging and I kept subbing and probably got to 40 in one contest once, a million years ago. I don’t do that anymore. I spend more time on individual contests I choose to work on, and less time on trying to get to all of them. Well, I haven’t won much so I suppose that’s not the greatest tactic. LOL.
I do think your idea was well thought-out. At the same time, I don’t see SH doing that. They do not want to limit customers.
The only problem with one entry for non tier a people is that really doesn’t give them much of a chance to become better and get to tier a. I can agree with the limitation and such to a certain extent but one entry for non tier a doesn’t allow for much potential to not be stuck at non tier a for impossibly long periods of time.
The second when it came out to me, I also thought that there’s unfortunatly no way it will happen but let’s give some space to SH for some good suprise:)
Agree. Well, I didn’t write I have everything perfectly figured out, but for a starting point, I believe 5:1 ratio in submissions is reasonable - for me it took few long weeks if not months to get a Tier A, so I wanted to make sure there’s something for Tier A in this.
About non-Tier A: up to SH what they want to do next. We all, Tier A and non-Tier are too, also, in some ways, clients of SH.
Limitation on almost everything doesnt sound good at all. Limitation for the customers, limitation for the creatives, sounds more headache and frustation, or pressure. Soon enough the idea of limitation will limit the growth of Squadhelp itself. Like putting a big fish inside small aquarium
The percentile score already good enough to limit entries. When ur percentile drop, then ur entries limit will drop also. We saw already many creatives many times protest that their percentile score drop. And about entries, if percentile below 80% or 70% i forgot, then u need to use ur points to get into early contest.