Ideas to improve contest holder feedback

Share your thoughts on how to further improve the level of feedback and ratings from contest holders. We currently inform the contest holders via emails and notifications messages on the contest dashboard about how important it is to provide ongoing feedback on their contests.

What are your thoughts on how to further improve the level of participation from contest holders?

1 Like

@Jose, are you referring to contest pre-payment? We already collect the entire payment in advance when contest is launched. If the contest holder leaves without selecting a winner, we then still select a winner and credit the prize amount the winner.

What do you think about a coupon/or credit for future contest in case the contest holder provides ongoing feedback and maintains their contest holder rating above 3 stars?

Got it. Will take your idea into consideration. The only thing we have to think about is that adding additional hurdle (extra security deposit), it might deter some contest holders against launching the contest in the first place. However it is an interesting idea and we will certainly consider it.

We will also open another topic around criteria for winner selection for unawarded contests. We too would like to minimize our involvement in choosing winners, and would rather establish a mechanism that allows for winner selection without a subjective involvement from our side, in case the contest holder doesn’t award a contest.

1 Like

Pre-authorize a fee that will be charged to the CH’s credit card if no winner is selected.


Read the first suggestion in my “Consolidated Suggestions” entry!

1 Like

Ok. Based upon this feedback, we have decided to work on an “incentive” for contest holders instead of charging them additional fee. It will work just like an advance payment which is refundable, but instead of collecting additional money, we will refund a portion back from our listing fees. Basically, if they select a winner within 5 days of contest creation, we will send them a credit which is equal to 10% of the award fee. We will implement this in the near future and will announce when it is implemented.


Directly from rules on SHsection 3.5 article 1

  1. Ratings: This is the fastest way to provide feedback. If you do not like a submission, rate it as one star or two stars. You also have the option of rejecting the entry if you beleive it doesn’t meet your requirements. If you like a particular entry, you should rate it as 4 stars or 5 stars. This will allow the contestants to better understand your taste and preferences and their subsequent submissions will take this feedback into account.
    Love the ratings system to me this is slightly flawed and a more outlined rating system would improve feedback such as:( For client to read b4 contest)
    Rate 1star if contestant didn’t follow your rules as outlined in brief
    2 Star if contestant followed brief, but the name is not a good fit
    3 Stars Contestant is on the right track but you do not love/hate this entry
    4 stars Could be what I’m looking for very good entry
    5 Stars loves the entry and is on my shortlist
    Please keep in mind these could be rewritten some but a more rigid guideline than the aforementioned original

Hey there Dan! Just curious to know what are the main reasons that a CH doesn’t select name for their contest. I don’t understand why they’d lay down the money and then walk away from it. Can you guys see them logging in to their accounts after the contest time is up? If it’s not a good thing to answer any of this publicly, i understand.

I am dead certain that the reasons are not as “extreme” as @Jose pointed out :slight_smile:

It could be one of several factors:

Too many entries to pick a winner, or they found a name but didn’t come back at the end of contest to pick a winner, or they just didn’t like any submission at all. Sometimes, the business idea itself that they were going after is no longer viable, so they might lose interest in picking a name. There could be several other factors too.

Quality of submissions is certainly more important than quantity in these contests. Sometimes if there are 1000+ submissions, the “good” quality submissions can easily get buried among the other not so good submissions. Therefore, we think the idea of creatives highlighting two of their best submissions would help in bubbling up the high quality submissions to top, leading to fewer abandoned contests.


My belief was always that some of the “CHs” were actually hired to write briefs for companies. There’s a number of CHs who have run contests for widely varying industries. That doesn’t mean they’re unconcerned CHs, either; one who has run a couple of recent contests has been extremely forthcoming with feedback and remarkably generous with bonuses. But I’ve had the feeling that others submit a wide variety of briefs, sometimes give ratings, and often don’t come back to award the contest, or request that their client(s) pick a winner. Have I been misinterpreting this?

1 Like

And PS the incentive idea is terrific. I hope it’s successful!


Yes @auntshommy- The idea of the “rebate” for good behavior will be SO attractive to the CHs, that I’ll just bet we will see the % of “unpicked” winners drop dramatically!! Brilliant @Dan :sunglasses:
Now- I would like to propose (again) an idea I have trotted out every couple of months: Badges for Good CHs!! It would help us all to identify the Great Multiple users, (even if they are too busy to rate one, or their clients are dragging feet- we will still know they have integrity). There would, of course, be different levels & one could even indicate that they are “Fun” to work with.
I was just looking at new testimonials- (hmmm they all look alike right now- I know that will probably change by tomorrow :wink: ) but I noticed them talking about referrals- another badge(s).
We creatives (&admin.) would be able to Vote on them after the contest is completed. The possibilities are endless & would give us a ‘quick glance’ to see those whom rise to the top. So many really great CHs are using SH now, it would be nice to recognize those - lots of bonuses for extra work; frequent raters; great communicators; etc., etc… I’ve often wanted to give more than just the one badge to the good ones in the past… Besides- everybody likes an “atta boy/girl” :innocent:
Should this be a new, separate topic?


Oh- I also feel Super Chs that have/are currently participating should be “grandfathered” in & given a (any) badges they have already earned from past good contest. Almost forgot to mention that- they’ve already earned them. :slight_smile:

Thanks @whirlwind! We have been thinking of something along these lines, and will certainly take your suggestion into account. It might take us some time to add this to our site, because we are working on several other improvements in parallel. However, we will add this to the list of items we need to work on and we will make an announcement when this is implemented.

Lastly Dan any way to show that our entries have at least been looked at by the CH?, I know this for one would get rid of any extra comment by creatives on at least knowing they saw our submission ranked or unranked


Sorry I’m late to this thread, by two weeks lol :sweat_smile:

We could maybe compile a list of relevant/common messages that CHs can Click and Paste to give some initial feedback. Make it easy for them to start the process. I think once they see how well it’s working they might be more willing to join in the conversation.

Although, some CHs will characteristically prefer less communication, it’s to be expected, some people are just that way. I think there have been times CHs were pushed to communicate, do so reluctantly and only at the very end. We should understand and find ways to accommodate all personality traits, it is the way of the crowd in crowdsourcing. End of the day, most CHs are busy people already having too much on their minds, isn’t that why they have come to us for help?

I really think SH should focus on more quality ways/tools to ease the process for CHs to do the necessary.


I would get rid of the 5-star rating system.
Only 3 options:
Don’t like it
Like it
I really like it!
From a CH’s point of view the 1 star or 2 stars and even the 3 stars are the same: They are not going to choose any of these names, so making all of them “don’t like it” is good.
Apart from these 3 options there should be a FLAG system for entries that are off-topic, so-bad-that-make-people-cry, swearing, blasphemy ectc.
The dont-like-it entries should not be punished, I have seen CHs choose names that made me cringe.
Instead, the flagged entries should be checked and those users warned or punished.


I think you should probably test it for longer than 4 days before changing anything :wink:

I think Ive won with a three star before

1 Like

While I don’t have a problem with the 5-star rating system, I definitely agree with Wolverutto that naming abusers ought to be the ones reprimanded. Not contestants at large who happened to try the wrong direction.