Update to Winner Selection Policy


#21

Sounds like participation trophies to me.


#22

[quote=“ALDaisy1, post:21, topic:2284, full:true”]
Sounds like participation trophies to me.[/quote]
I’m sorry - Not laughing at you, Daisy, but I found that remark really funny. :laughing:


#23

No problem @AlwriteyThen, glad I brightened your day. :slight_smile:


#24

I agree, I made that same exact comment in another thread quite a while ago. I think that’s when they tried to suggest splitting tiny dollars like this before…but they changed to the current format to just 2-4 winners. I still feel the same.


#25

And I’d prefer SH spent more time focusing on closing abandoned contests in a more timely manner. There are 259 pending. Up to 3 and 4 months old. Focus on fixing something that needs fixing. Not what isn’t broken.


#26

I don’t like it either.I would rather take my chances in getting a slice of the split, instead of getting a pittance that I couldn’t even withdraw until it hit $25. I would say leave it be, or if you want to change it…I rather have the change be that if you are a multiple high rated creative in a contest, you get more bites of the apple. For example in one contest I had 6 love its, and some like its. I think there were 24 love its…but I had 25% of them…yet when it went to the bot,I didn’t get any of it,which I thought was lame. I think if you have more higher rated entries, you should have a greater chance of getting part of the split, then someone who has one.I also feel the problem is more about getting CH’s not to abandon contests and award them themselves…then worrying about dividing wins into infinitessimal portions. JMHO


#27

I dont know who to support on. I am 50/50. But i do agree with remarkable comment sentences by @jackieheraty “Focus on fixing something that needs fixing. Not what isn’t broken.”


#28

I love all of these responses. I mostly agree though that we have come up with the original problem here. The problem isn’t necessarily fairness but that contests are abandoned in the first place. The entire topic revolves around ‘guaranteed’ prizes. CHs have decided that they will guarantee their money to be used whether they pick a winner or not. This to me designates that if they aren’t loving the submissions enough to pick one, that maybe suggestions need to be made to them to ‘steer’ a contest in a way that they are able to find what they like and also put in their effort into finding what they want. I understand that they can pay for SHs help, but is that they only way that we can find out why contests are being abandoned when they have guaranteed money and help CHs better run contests so there is less of a chance of a contest being abandoned?

Also handling the ones that have been abandoned in more timely fashion is something else I agree with. Also maybe implementing something like holly mentioned.

I don’t know, but it’s my opinion as well that if it’s not broke don’t fix it. But there are some things that are that can be fixed. I think answering the question of why contests are abandoned, making them less likely to be abandoned when guaranteed, helping the CHs ‘steer’ contests better to get what they are seeking and to stay engaged through the entire contest period are the more important issues here that could deserve the attention versus to the winner selection policy which I was more happy with than this new ‘slim pickings’ ordeal which now has me going stir crazy over a few contests that i have been waiting on because with the new policies I may only get 3 dollars total for all where when I had a chance of at least getting a hundred or more if I got any. Sure something is better than nothing but in this case, I’d give up those possible future winnings of the old system’s amount to get the old system back. The old system I at least won a few with decent dollar amounts to make me feel like my time was worth it.


#29

I’d like to see how it plays out. I think there are several creatives posting that will accumulate more than they think. Several of you trend constantly. Plus, who knows how many high ratings you have but didn’t make the trending board! I think some of you will make a small return in the majority of abandoned contests you participated in.

Plus, there are a fair amount of times the amount of high rated entries is small, which means you will still see sizable payouts from time to time. Not every abandoned contest will produce tiny pay outs.


#31

Yup, thats what I wanted to know


#32

I feel Squadhelp is catering too much to naggers and naysayers, especially with this move. I see nothing wrong with the current system (Before this change) and the payouts are actually meaningful to the creatives who receive them.


#33

I’m thinking this change is more focused on SH cutting out favoritism complaints they don’t want to deal with (none from me, BTW) rather than appeasing nay sayers. Meaning they’re doing it for their own sanity, not ours.

Everytime I’ve seen a change to the winner selection policy it’s always focused on eliminating favoritism complaints and everytime it changes the majority of us complain that it doesn’t need to be changed, I’ve been one of them. They still make the change, which to me shows its for their reasons and not a handful of naggers.

It’s kind of funny tho because the last change that was made a lot of us didn’t like it and are now trying to defend it. Given time we will adapt to this way and be mad when it’s again changed, if it is.

I personally STILL miss when SH staff chose a sole winner from loves, likes, and best entries but unfortunately that just puts them in the line of fire for complaints. This new change further removes them from that line. Therefore it’s gonna happen because it’s in their best interest of transparency. It’s not always about us :wink:


#34

This change may be easier for some to accept than others. But just like some creatives have issues with the ratings system (which I think functions well) others have issues with this policy change. Everyone should feel free to express their concerns, without being made to feel they are not team players.


#35

If it makes life easier for SH, then surely that’s better for all of us.

Personally, I’m not bothered either way. I don’t think this will have a material difference on the bonuses we receive over the long term. We’ll just get lots of little sums instead of one or two big ones.


#36

@grant
Will this new process void the automatic funds transfer preference?


#37

@grant

Furthermore, in another topic, many were discussing the withdrawl fees of the payment process. How’s this going to work with the new 25$ minimum? Will we have to wait until we accumulate $25 and then have the fees taken out of that as well? Seems like less and less money the more you think about it


#38

@grant and @Darpan I agree with @lightless. Furthermore, an algorithm does not show favortism, orange faces are not spawns of the devil, and I believe the majority of the creatives are happy with what is in place, and IMHO, SH would, more or less, be throwing out crumbs to the hard work of creatives if they follow through with this plan. Very demoralizing. Please reconsider…


#39

Thank you everyone for sharing your feedback. I would like to add few thoughts to provide a bit more context around this change, and clarify some of the concerns.

First of all, this change is being done so that we can move this particular method from a game of chance to a more fair and transparent distribution for everyone. The current method awards these types of contests based on random selection. Our team continues to receive ongoing concerns from creatives who feel that the current method favors certain creatives. We believe the current method leaves the room open for such concerns and requires ongoing resources from our team in addressing them on an ongoing basis. There are several ongoing initiatives to ensure that the CH stay engaged throughout the process so that more and more contests are awarded by the CH. Notwithstanding those initiatives, we believe it is still important for us to move to a more transparent method so that there is no more ambiguity or “luck” involved in these contest awards. This will also allow our team to spend more time in improving other aspects of the platform, instead of spending resources in addressing such ongoing concerns about the contest awards.

Some of you have mentioned that this change would lead to lower payouts. I would encourage you to give this some time to see how it plays out. From a statistical/ probability perspective, the expected value of your overall earnings is no different than what it was before this change. Imagine you were told that you will receive $1 every time you win a coin toss. If you flip that coin 100 times, you are expected to win $50 (because there is a 50% probability of you being right each time). Instead of that guessing game, if you were told that for every coin toss, both sides will equally receive $.50 cents each, you are still expected to receive $50 in the end.

Similarly, instead of awarding people randomly, we are simply dividing that award equally with EVERY deserving creative who would have previously been eligible for random selection. We appreciate the concern that the individual contest awards may be smaller than before. But at the same time , you will now receive an award every time your name is in a shortlist. Therefore, what you should expect to receive in payouts per month from such contests should not be materially different from the previous method. In addition, we will do our best to award these contests in groups so that you still receive meaningful awards every time contests are awarded.

The $25 minimum withdrawal is simply to reduce administrative overhead with processing smaller awards. This has absolutely no implication on what you actually receive in your Paypal account. The 10% transaction fee stays the same before or after this change. If you withdraw individual awards, or pool them together to withdraw a larger award, the same 10% transaction fee applies.

Our platform is built on the pillars of trust and transparency. Any change that allows us to bring further transparency in our processes helps us move closer to our platform vision. Change is never easy, and we appreciate everyone’s feedback. I will just ask all of you to give this some time, and continue to share your feedback on how we can further improve this platform.


#40

@Darpan…can you explain in simple terms…if only one creative has a love it…would they still win the total amount? Or does the only love it have to split with all the likes? I still am not totally getting it clearly.


#41

@jackieheraty I know you’re asking Darpan but the only love it would get the entire prize. It might help to look at it this way: every single thing about the process is exactly the same, literally exactly, the difference is, instead of splitting between a random pick of up to 4 creatives with the very highest rating given, it will be split between every creative with the very higest rating given. If only one creative holds the very highest rating given, they will collect the entire prize.

Hopefully that makes sense :slightly_smiling_face: