Seeing a lot of contests ending with multiple winner, in on case 30 winner for a hundred dollar contest, thinking we need to cap shortlisting. There is currently one contest where they havent been active in over a week, if its abandoned people will win less than fifty cents.
I’ve won less than 50 cents many times. 12 cents, 6 cents, 37 cents etc…I have gotten ChaChings for 5 contests for a combined total of less than $4.00
Ouch, That hurts… Sometimes these cha chings are funny
I’ve won Cha-Ching of 80 cent in three different contest, but I’m always OK with the decision because I know nobody receive more shares than me in the contest. I entered contest with the aim of winning it not to be abandoned and wait for Cha-Ching, therefore anything received from Cha-Ching is just an added advantage and undeserved kindness from SH platform. Yes it’s an undeserved kindness in the sense that if SH makes it pay after service, there will be nothing like Cha-Ching and I’m sure many of us on the site who are addicted to it already with still stay irrespective of the payment options.
Ouch. It certainly makes you question the amount of time to put in. I wonder what the combined hourly time was for all the creatives in those contests. At $15-20 dollars you can take it, and be happy, at $5 you can accept it, but at a dollar or less…not so much. I also think that if you got more than one shortlist name in a contest you should get a bigger piece of the pie.
I also think the split should be based per shortlist, not per creative. For example: a $100 contest with 10 shortlists, each shortlist would get a $10 share. So if 8 creatives had 1 shortlist, and 1 creative had 2 shortlists in this imaginary contest, 8 would get $10 and 1 would get $20.
lol labrynth that is what i was attempting to put in words but you did it so much better
+1 That does make perfect logical sense. I didn’t know that that’s not how it’s currently working.
Giving creatives an extra share of the prize for multiple shortlisted names will only make sense if there is an overall cap on the number of names that can be shortlisted at one time. Otherwise, prizes will be split into even smaller shares. And if there was an overall limit, I doubt there would be so many instances of one creative with multiple shortlists, because CHs would have to be much more selective about their shortlists. Currently, they are spoiled for choice, in other words they don’t whittle down their shortlists because they have no real motivation to do so.
We have looked into this option in the past (splitting awards by each high rated entries instead of by creatives) however have concluded that the current method is the most fair for following reasons:
Once you receive a high rating in a contest, it is relatively easy to achieve additional high ratings by continuing to submit minor variations of the names that were already liked by the CH. Therefore, distributing the award for each high rating can lead to a potential misuse of the policy (where some creatives may continue to submit similar names with a goal to accumulate more high ratings)
The total award will be split into even smaller chunks when there are multiple high rated entries per creative.
Since a CH did not select a winner, it is safe to assume that none of the submissions worked for them. Therefore, instead of rewarding each submission, our current policy is designed to reward creatives who came closest to what the CH was looking for.
I think your logic makes sense for abandoned contests with no shortlisted names. With contests where ideas have been locked down by the CH it is only fair to award per shortlisted name as compensation for possible winning submissions they could have been on dozens of contests they miss out on during the lock period. To prevent (1), as Daisy said, you should limit the number of names CHs can shortlist. That way there will no longer be tiny awarded amounts where there have been shortlisted names.
I’m ok with the current split award system. Over a long period of time, it seems to kind of balance out anyway. As far as the names being locked in for months at a time, I do think that could be revisited.
I agree with Squadhelp’s assessment of this. It has been a proven method for a while and your logic makes sense.
I am perfectly fine with the current method, thank you. Even a dollar on splits is more than one would have had had the contest been awarded. Besides, why try to change something that, IMHO seems to be working well?
What about capping them a bit shorter?
Let me comment on the distribution of the premium for only a fraction of the shortlist options. If the customer has added one or another name to the short-list, then he regards it as a potential winner. Even if the customer has disappeared and the fee is distributed among the creatives, it is wrong to exclude one or another option from applying for a fee. This question should remain solely within the competence of the customer. Perhaps, some time after chaching, the customer will choose the option that, at the discretion of the administration, was denied the right to chaching. Such a situation would become absolutely absurd - the winner remained at the curb, while other short list creatives shared the fee actually earned by this author.
True. And with so many previously submitted names being registered weeks later potentially by CHs it’s sad that the actual creative is not fully rewarded. It’s also very sad that when we report a name it is only checked with one CH and not with all the CHs the name has been submitted to.
Thus topic of domain registration has been addressed many times before.
Basically in a nutshell, if you didn’t register it, you don’t own it.
I know alot of times we think our ideas are original, but I find more often that they’re not.
Just because a domain is available, doesn’t mean the name isn’t out there in cyberspace.
Google your names and see if they show up.
SH also discourages the practice of submitting names across various contests for this exact reason, plus CH’s are hoping for original names based on their brief.
Best way is to go to your entry tab and click on entries submitted 30 within days and no available domain. If you do this daily or at least weekly, you should be able to report with ease.
Still guarantees nothing, but at least a report can be made
I’m confused by this
“1. Once you receive a high rating in a contest, it is relatively easy to achieve additional high ratings by continuing to submit minor variations of the names that were already liked by the CH. Therefore, distributing the award for each high rating can lead to a potential misuse of the policy (where some creatives may continue to submit similar names with a goal to accumulate more high ratings)”
Isn’t submitting variations of the names that were already liked by the CH a good thing? Isn’t this what the platform wants and asks for? If the CH continues participating and getting names they like isn’t that a good thing?
I rarely EVER submit variations of the same name unless asked for. That, at least to me, is not being creative. And to me, it seems like if the CH wanted repetition and variants, they would ask for such. I don’t think it’s good practice to do it just because a name got liked. That’s not being original and can actually – in the cases where I’ve experienced doing it … lead to the CH becoming frustrated and starting to downgrade further entries of variations.