I know a long time ago I asked something about if creatives who are not active namers ever have an “expiration” date…(the answer was no) but I have a new question that is kind of related( this is directed probably to Darpan or Grant).Why is there a need to keep adding Creatives constantly to the naming pool? I just saw there are over 71,000 registered creatives! I could understand if there was a small amount of number of creatives that you would need to back fill…but is there really a need for 71,000 and counting? There are hundreds that are added daily.And it’s not like there aren’t at least hundreds of capable and talented creatives already. It just seems like this huge amount of people would muddy the water for everyone else who have been here working hard,and are trying to win contests and already have huge competition.I know there is probably alot of redundancy, but not to need 71,000 namers I would think, to account for that. Will you ever limit who can join,or put a hold on it or anything? Or will SH just continue to be a huge expanding balloon of creatives?
I noticed this a day or so ago. It just struck me as odd since someone mentioned that false advertising thing in these forums a few days ago. I just said to myself, now this could be false advertising. But, I went on about my day. It’s good that you brought this up.
As soon as you start limiting who can join then you have to start picking WHO can join. Will it be based on our stats (which many openly state they don’t understand or believe to be accurate), would it be based off of number of wins vs contests entered (which is consistently changing), or would we become paying members to secure a right to participate?
Entertaining an idea of this nature jeopardizes the very things many of us love about SH on the creative side.
This is a place we creatives come to work our minds, alleviate stress, pass time, enjoy a hobby, make some extra cash, etc on our time, when we feel like it, if we feel like it, and it’s always there for us.
Plus, if you deny new members you may be turning away more creative people than you have in your “active” creative group.
Lastly, the more creative members SH has, the more appealing it is to a potential CH. Therefore, it wouldn’t benefit them to cancel memberships or allow them to expire, even if they’re inactive.
False advertising would be SH saying CHs will have 70,000 participants submitting ideas. They don’t. They advertise they have 70,000 members and they can expect several hundred entries from around the world. Which is accurate.
Well said, Chasity. I"m glad you spoke out…
How about I say it may give potential contest holders a false impression to advertise over 70,000 creatives?
First of all, to be false, it would have to be proven that there aren’t over 70,000 creatives. Secondly, for all any of us knows 70k is the number of active creatives. Thirdly, activity is relative. I myself have been through periods of inactivity and yet, here I am. Those that are inactive right now, even if they have been inactive for months at a time, does not mean that they won’t decided – for whatever reason – to come back tomorrow and do a few or even 30 contests. Finally, @Chasity2ku is right, there is nothing on the page or within the advertising that I have seen that implies that you (as a CH) will have all 70k creatives actively submitting for your idea.
In fact, as seen here:
In my opinion, the only thing that would give a CH false impressions would be if they decided to plow through everything without reading, and doing their own research. In comparison to the other choices (of platforms and sites which do similar) out there which many of us have also been a part of, SH is still the best in unique ideas, amount of ideas, amount of actual creativity versus people that just do random robotic submissions, and many other things.
As an active creative here, I myself have not witnessed any false impressions/advertisment on sh behalf. Occasionally there is some confusion in certain practices/ layouts or implementations. Sh team is very open to explaining any such confusion. Certain concerns are better discussed privately between creative and administrators. Imo
I am guessing that you didn’t read the qualifying word in my statement. Let me make it easier to see below
Did you notice the word MAY this time?
I did notice your ‘may’ and I am saying that the only way I can see it giving false impressions is if they don’t read for themselves the amplitude of information that is available to them – which I would hope someone would do before throwing hundreds of dollars into something that is presumably one of the most important decisions on their brand/company they could have to make. And I’m sorry if my response seemed to miss the mark, I was just being objective about the possibilities of which the only possibilities I see could be easily alleviated if research is done and SH is contacted with any and all questions before a decision is made to open a contest.
I suppose it could, but I don’t find it misleading. There are several other companies that we would need to deem misleading if this scenario is to be misleading. For example, you’ve got websites like care.com, rover.com, Angie’s list, ask a doctor type platforms, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram…the list goes on and on. Every single one of these websites advertise their growing community but none of them make a habit of disclosing how many of those members are actually active.
@hollygirl - The Squadhelp Naming Community predominantly grows organically.
The Community has been written about many times, and Creatives often share their experience with other. At this time, we do not have any plans to speed up or limit the growth of the community.
@Arnet et al - Of the 12,000 contest we’ve run, not a single customer has told us that they felt mislead. In fact we specifically state the number of entries that they should expect when they choose a contest package.