Prize splitting

I feel this is a concept that needs to be there on Squadhelp. In a few cases, there really are more than one deserving winner, however the complete lack of prize splitting results in one person taking all and another person who came up just short getting nothing.

Take the recent Farm contest as an example, the name “Clear Roots” was the clear catalyst for the winning name (By a different user) and the guy who suggested it got nothing except if the contest holder chooses to give him a nominal bonus or tip. However if prize splitting existed, both guys could have been sated with no extra liability to the contest holder.

This is also a concept that can be implemented for abandoned contests where no entries have been rated or where a large number of contestants have similar high ratings.

4 Likes

Agreed, from the moment the once private submission (Clear Roots) was made public and became a foundation for the winning name it deserved the credit as well unless, of course, the originator of the latter entry had the right of precedence. But it leads to further retro-activation as to whether the name Clear Roots would’ve been possible without the existence of the ‘Root of the Matter’ that came even before the former’s moment of birth ? (kidding:))

1 Like

I really feel slighted, since I had bare roots and only got a two star. :unamused:

I didnt understand why the rating were so low in that contest for similar ideas Ms Kral

Isnt the idea for ratings that you give higher marks to something thats almost there, so the person tries more options that are similar

4 Likes

It often feels like pulling teeth. lol. Or it feels like a game of 21 questions. One would think they would want to participate and be involved in a positive way in there own contest. I swear sometimes I feel like they think we’re suppose to know the name magically. Uugh. :persevere:

1 Like