I understand where you are coming from…but personally, I don’t want everyone to have access to everything I am doing.I feel SH is pretty transparent already and I don’t want all my love it’s (or lack of love its) to be displayed and dissected by everyone.But that’s just me…
It wouldn’t say the name of your love it’s just how many you got. My concern that the system rewards people who haven’t won in awhile or any. Like two weeks ago I won $300 but when it came to awarding contests that had been abandoned I received nothing. Probably because I had just won $300 there was no need to have me receive any and I had a lot of abandoned competitions I participated in and got nothing. So make it transparent, the people who continually participate and get high ratings should divvy up the pie. Because it comes across as rewarding people who haven’t won in awhile, I just think that’s dumb. And if they changed the system I’d be more motivated to participate in more competitions. Right now SH doesn’t motivate me, I’ve got to motivate myself and I think that doesn’t make much sense on their end if they want to keep and grow the number of creatives.
I don’t want people to know how many loves I get or don’t either. I’m not like everyone else. I have to do tricks to either A get a love it or B be able to keep it. And it says nothing to my ability either because here’s why: of the contests that I have participated that have actually rated people into the love it categories I’ve gotten loves in a good percentage of them. Otherwise, though, I have so MANY contests where loves were never used. So …
It’s not as if anyone of this site knows who you are lol! And if it’s such a problem it can just be labeled as creative A, creative B, creative C and so on and SH can tell you which creative you are so when you see the love it’s you know who you are. It would allow us to evaluate the pie chart while also knowing the amount of cash being abandoned, then being able to have sound mind that it’s being fairly distributed, get my point?
I get what you’re saying. I just don’t think having to have loves in past contests should make it so you get money in an unrelated abandoned contest. Then again, I’ve suggested that they go back to the old system but just make it so it literally is random from all participating in that contest not just ones the CH rated (because if they abandoned their opinion shouldn’t matter. Furthermore, your previous post claims that the system awards, “people who haven’t won in awhile or any”, if that were truly the case, those that have stated that they haven’t gotten any on abandoned contests since the new implementation of the way it divvies to dollars and cents now, wouldn’t be saying that. And by your own words you’d be prevented from your suggestion, because you said, “the people who continually participate and get high ratings should divvy up the pie”, but then suggested that you’re not being very active by saying, “if they changed the system I’d be more motivated to participate in more competitions” which means you’d only be more active IF they changed the system. What about those that had been active BEFORE them changing the system? Those that have stuck with it even though they have no chance of getting anything. You becoming active just because already shows a problem with your theory. You’d participate then just because you’d have a chance, when many of us are participating despite having a chance or not. Furthermore, the new system is no longer random, you only get the divvied up money if you are shortlisted in that contest. If people were shortlisted and you were not, then you were not eligible to get it. If there are no shortlists, then it divvies up between those with the highest ratings. So if you were not highest rated, then you were not eligible. If there were no high ratings then it goes to the people with on the right tracks. If there are no ratings, then it goes to four randoms (and I think you have to have so many loves in so much time in the past – which I don’t agree with, but that’s me).
Maybe I wasn’t clear, my bad. I’m only talking about contests that have no ratings whatsoever or only ratings with ‘on the right track’ or no thank you. These two types of contests, SH should tell us the total amount of all these combined and then divide it up amongst the people who have many love it ratings according to the pie chart I mentioned earlier. I would personally be more motivated to try more contests if the pay had this formula. Instead I just focus on taglines and $300 dollars contests. The rest I skim and if I see a product one I check it out. I’m absolutely no longer motivated to put in some much time, have CH not bother rating then when SH divides this contest in 4 winners, where is the evidence that it’s not random? That’s why being transparent would motivate me and others to try more contests. I’m pretty sure that’s what SH would want want, more people with higher ratings trying other contests so CH have a good experience with the site!
Contests that have on the right tracks and ntys, it would be split among all of those with the otrt rating. In order to get money for ones that aren’t rated at all, it’s my understanding that creatives are chosen that have had so many loves in the past (just not sure if that means all that meet said prerequisite or only a select number, and not that I agree with going off how many loves in past contests in past time because not everyone can be here constantly and not all contests get loves at all and not all SHs give loves, and other factors) [quote=“grant, post:1, topic:2284”]
If the contest only has No thank you ratings and/or unrated entries, the contest award will be equally split between Creatives who participated in the contest and have at least 5 Love It ratings in other contests in the previous month.
[/quote] — From: Update to Winner Selection Policy
But, based on this, it’s already doing what you want.
In fact, based on this, I should just quit SH altogether because I rarely get five in a month due to my own schedule and ability, and the factors I listed above, and other things.
I know what you mean.Some Ch’s don’t give love it’s even if you are the highest rated in their contest. I have won lots of contests where the CH didn’t rate at all. So getting a certain amount of love its a month is not always a reliable compass of how good or successful of a namer you are.
It’s a pretty good indication if you receive a lot of love it’s your at the top of your game. And to rareworthy, what I am saying is that when there’s no winner and SH sees there’s no markings that when they pick 4 winners for that contest it’s random amongst those who received 5 love it’s during the month. What if you received 40 love it’s in a month that should be a factor. That’s what I’m saying. Personally I would try out more contests if this was in place.
To me, that would be playing too much favoritism, which it already foots the line of as it is – considering there’s many of us that know how hard it is to get loves as is. And supposedly this system was created to eliminate the thoughts of people that thought the past way was unfair. It’s now become a bit more unfair, in mine and some others minds, and you’re suggesting to make it more so. There’s too many ways (that ARENT based on QUALITY) in which you may get stiffed from getting a lot of love its. So basing it upon love its as-is makes it a bit unfair, and then taking your way and only picking the people that got the most loves of the month from that contest would make it more unfair.
Btw, I don’t know if it’s four or however many. Just going on past comments and questions and posts. And I am not devaluing your idea, so please don’t think that. I can see how some would think that would be fair – if they’re ones that are HERE all the time and manage to get into the contests where CHs utilize loves, and all other factors – then yes, they’d think it was fair and more earned. But a majority of people barely fit that category due to many factors that have nothing to do with lack of quality.
IDEA: Instead of basing awards to non-rated abandoned contests ust on 5 loves with a month, if you don’t meet the five loves maybe you have to meet 10-20 likes within a month. Makes it more balanced and fair. I don’t know, just an idea.
I think the way it was ,where they would randomly pick winners from all creatives who entered when there were no positive ratings is the best…because that way everyone who spent time and brainpower contributing has a chance.That way there is no favortism.
Completely disagree. The people who have high ratings should receive more. It like if I enter bad name after bad name, why should I receive any money? The random really isn’t fair. Create a pie chart and divide it up that way.
On another subject there is nothing more frustrating then receiving great feedback from CH, they the ask for entries, so you spend more time giving them entries they like, they keep loving them liking them and right when the contest is about to end they drop off the face of the earth. I find this sooo infuriating.
If there were no positive ratings in the contest…then no one entered “good” names according to the CH…so everyone is on the same playing field.
No really they aren’t. If creative A competes in 100 contests a month and score 93 no thank you’s 2 likes and 5 love it and creative B competes in 100 contests and has 30 no thanks you’s 40 likes and 30 love it’s. Creative B worked harder to find names CH holders liked. I’m just saying it should be public, we get to see how many competitions someone entered and how many love it’s they got. SH should make a pie chart and if creative B has 14% of the pie chart they get 14% of all the money in abandoned contests. It helps compensate for the time spent coming up with good names on other contests. You shouldn’t be rewarded if your not a very good namer, that’s the point I’m trying to make! In communication class for copywriting the saying is, don’t get discouraged if you’re ideas are rejected but if they keep getting rejected Time to consider finding something else to do!
[quote=“KwaziMoto, post:976, topic:1179”]
…so you spend more time giving them entries they like, they keep loving them and liking them and right when the contest is about to end, they drop off the face of the earth.[/quote]
Yes, yes, YES! - I think this frustrates me more than anything else, Kwazi.
If we have the ability to delete contests in our watch list we should have that in closed contests. Since Squad help won’t put the most recent contest that choose a winner at the top of the list it’s so frustrating having to scroll through dozens of names to figure out which one haven’t I’ve seen. Let us go on the Closed tab, see the winner of a contest and after we’ve seen the name have the ability to delete it from closed contests. It makes no sense having 172 names in my closed contest, what’s the point?
It would be nice of SH if they ate the fees for the transfers done through paypal.
I don’t know where you live…but I don’t pay any Paypal fees to transfer my money.Unless you choose the instant (within 30 minutes) transfer. Otherwise it’s free and only takes like a day to go into your account.
He could be talking about the 10% fee that’s subtracted before you receive payment.