While I appreciate what the thought is behind this…I have an issue with it too. I agree with what has been said about ratings…while of course if you have ratings in the 40’s…you probably have not honed your naming skills to what they probably should be…but as I brought up before in past forums, and someone else did here too…the rating system as it stands is not always a clear indicator as to if you are a good namer or not.
Since the goal is to provide winning names the CH likes, and let’s be honest… the creative and SH to make money…then the contests someone has won is just as valuable of an indicator (if not more) than what scores the CH gives. My point being as and others have mentioned before…that some CH’s rate almost everything negatively…or bounce around on the ratings,first a love it ,then a rejection, then an on the right track etc.So if your name was a love it at one time then gets rejected…it didn’t suddenly turn into a bad name.Plus some have said…they have actually won contests with rejected names.The rating system is somewhat flawed.
Not only that…I have had many contests I have won where I didn’t even get a rating on my name.So even though it improved my contests won percentage…it did nothing for my CH stats…even though clearly it was the name the CH favored.
So you can’t use the CH ratings only as a fair indicator of who’s a good namer and not.People come to SH and may be in a few contests and have good luck…then drop out of sight,having and retaining a high rating.But those who enter most contests and take the blows that come along with heavy participation, as Lightless was talking about…may end up having their ratings highly fluctuate, depending what the naming cycle is like.
Why should these creatives be penalized, when they are active contributors…and not sitting on their laurels of having only small or sporadic participation that scored them a high CH rating,but not really actively taking risks in continuing to name?
Also the current system as is, can penalize creatives whose names are not as mainstream but more creative,and have only a certain audience for it.
That does not mean either that they are not good namers…but rather that they either are wildly successful with their creations(winning contests) or they crash and burn,instead of residing in the naming “safe” zone.
To me…that’s why SH works…because of the diversity of people’s contributions.Now that’s not saying there shouldn’t be some kind of sifting for those who really don’t do well at this, and are clogging up the system with names that are perhaps subpar…but I don’t want good namers to be penalized if they have a downturn.
I consider myself an above average creative…but have taken a huge hit on my CH ratings lately.After working very hard at this consistently over a year now… and winning contests every month…I would be upset if suddenly I was excluded for 3 hours from entering contests while others can get the jump on me.(My stats at present are over 80%…but that could always change).
This marketplace here has to be equitable and fair and open to all.Especially those who have proven themselves and have stayed loyal and hardworking.Otherwise you create an elitist system.It’s hard enough to win already, and so much of our creative hard work already does not translate into dollars. Let’s don’t stack the deck even more. These are some of the reasons I don’t agree with this
Ok…off my soapbox…