The New Point System

Hello, I joined Squadhelp in April of 2015, and it has quickly become my new favorite spot to go to om the internet. I have won 6 contests thus far, several bonuses, and have been a top trending contestant in many of the contests. I am writing, as I am now starting to see the negative affects of the new point penalty system. Two weeks ago I had over 12,000 points, and now I am down to just 7400. I like to try and put in as many creative entries as possible and work with the CH’s ratings to try and get the perfect name. Many of the CHs have rated my entries with just one star, even though I have followed their brief. The rating by itself is fine, however now that I am losing so many points for these “failed” entries, I fear that I will soon lose the ability to enter a larger amount of names. I can see how this would be a good deterrent for people who use some sort of program to have names entered with no meaning, but this new penalty point system is now affecting me.
I take my time to do research and put my entries in carefully. I am still listed as being in the top 22% of contestants. Can you please reconsider the point system so that it rewards us top users instead of penalizing is so severally?

5 Likes

I am totally with you. Another issue, we do not always get rated. A lot of contests now do not give ratings to up our score. Or it goes the other way, they just one star evryone without a second thought. Not a fan of new point system in the least.

1 Like

While I appreciate the intention of weeding out spammers. I think more attention should have been centered on the contestants who regularly “blast” through their limit of entries, especially if they have more than ten entries to submit. Those who do such blasting are probably working from a word generator, and should be warned and or immediately have submissions reduced. I thought the new point system addressed this situation as fairly as possible. But this added submission limitation definitely hinders the creativity. Please rethink this. Thank you.

I have been on this site for 3 years and have never blasted through my limit of submissions. I have been a high quality contestant through out my stay, and should not be reduced to 5 submissions, for reasons that have been previously mentioned by Kelkat. Sometimes Ch’s don’t take the time to fully evaluate the quality of the submissions. and some have a winner predetermined, and have no intention of seriously evaluating entries. Those of us who don’t blast should not be penalized for that.

I was surprised and dismayed to log on today and see that I have been reduced to 5 entries, down from 40. Not that I require 40 entries, but my understanding is that they were earned. It can take a series of entries to discover the CH direction and focus on that. Five is not enough. Also I feel like a newbie all over again who has to earn her stripes. I have not been able to participate as much this year as last due to family matters and assumed I could pick up where I left off. Disheartening to say the least.

1 Like

but you can do five then delete then do five more etc if they are not liked - if you hit a five you get 10 more I think.

It doesnt affect how many names you can do, it only affects how many you can do at once

Thanks Jose… true but only works for CH who are responsive and rate in a timely manner. I have sometimes won contests on entries that were never rated just picked at the very end

1 Like

@Dan Since this change hinges on a 6-month performance window, I think it makes sense to allow the contestant time to gradually adapt. Pulling the rug from under contestants is just going to be painful.

Maybe contestants who used to have 40 entries can be allowed 30 now, and then 20 after one month, and then 10 and finally be all on the new system.

OTOH, how about rewarding contestants who have had a number of wins a 5, 10, 15 entries to start with?

Also, just would like to mention that if the old system applies of losing points due to one or two star entries, then the system will not accurately reflect CH’s negative feedback when they ignore entries, granting them no stars whatsoever.

For example, in the real estate photography contest, the CH only actually rates a certain number of entries, let’s say half of the overall submissions. So when I get 3 stars on one of my entries I’m even on points, but when I then get 2 stars on my other 4 entries I am losing points compared to those whose entries are simply ignored. I’m assuming when my entries are ignored in other contest where the CH is clearly actively rating, that would mean they don’t even merit the effort of giving my any stars.

So unsure how this all applies to our 6 month “reputations” but if hitting 1-2 stars that we may tweak into 3-4 stars punishes us compared to ignored entries, this may need to be reconsidered somehow. I think it’s unrealistic to expect CH’s to rate all entries, no matter what instructions we give, many seem to just rate according to how much they like something on a scale of 1-5.

1 Like

Also @kelkat, totally agree that some CH’s find it easier to organize things on their end by dismissing entries with one star that maybe should technically be getting 3 stars according to instructions. Others ignore entries so that falls between the cracks… I think the gap is that we simply can’t count on CHs to follow the rating system and we are losing points accordingly. Having said that, no suggestions come to mind to correct the situation. I hate to complain when I can’t at least propose a solution however perhaps collectively we can dwell on it a bit.

1 Like

Thanks everyone for your continued feedback. As mentioned in my other post, we have implemented several tools, notifications and guides for CH that have significantly increased the number of entries being rated by CH in a timely fashion. We have also collected detailed feedback from several contest holders and it is clear that we can greatly reduce the abandoned contests by reducing the quantity of submissions which are done prior to receiving initial CH feedback. If the CH receives an extremely large number of submissions on Day 1, they are less likely to rate any of them due to the sheer volume of entries. If on the other hand, they receive a smaller number of well thought out submissions, they are more likely to provide feedback , and therefore set a better direction for the contest.

We have evaluated this change from several perspectives, and intend to stay with the current system. This is in no way meant to “penalize” any group of contestants - infact we are grateful to those users who have been with the platform for many years. Needless to say, we are committed to assessing the impact of the new system on an ongoing basis and make any changes that would be necessary.

1 Like

Hi Dan, thanks for your explanation. Of course we respect whatever you decide. Just wanted to let you know another impact of the new system… in one contest alone, I have had at least 10 “entry already entered by another contestant messages” which I may not have had if I were not waiting for ratings before submitting more. For your consideration

Some general feedback : I have only 10 initial entries. This is not a bottleneck if the contest holder rates promptly and often (In which case, I have effectively unlimited entries), but it becomes quite restrictive in case of the following contest holders 1] Those who never rate 2] Those who only rate periodically and 3] Those who rate only a few cherry-picked entries overall, so you are never sure if they have seen your entries or not

In those cases, I am generally stuck with only 10 entries, with very little scope for variety in entries, experimentation and learning/improvement from ratings.