Updates to Point System

I have to say that I’m not really liking the new point system. I had over 12,000 points last week, and now just have 9600. I use 100 points for each contest for the best entry, and am getting hammered with the -10 points for each “2” star. In the recent door naming contest, I tried about 5 batches of 40 and only was able to get a handful of three stars. That contest alone took me down about 2000 points. I really think the point updates should be reevaluated a bit.

2 Likes

Dan,
I have to say I am a very surprised by your response to my post. In re-reading my post, I could have made my points more brief for sure, but I think I raised some very valid questions. They are questions and illustrations in the spirit of helping to look at these changes and their impacts from all perspectives, not challenges to your authority. Nor am I in any way trying to challenge SH to do anything other than continue being a great platform? No need to prove that you are “NOT trying to stifle creativity”, I certainly don’t believe that is your intent. I did say that it was “too early” yet to come to any conclusions. I just mentioned how the new points system has affected my thought process so far, based on the “math”. I think my points illustrations were certainly in the ballpark of how the current formula actually plays out? I totally agree that changes need to be made. I am all for it. I even said that any current feelings of being creatively stifled could be “dissipated” with a little tweaking? I love the new “best entry” addition, as well as all the changes to the site format, and I look forward to getting the points system fleshed out. I am a some what creative and passionate person, admittingly a bit too passionate at times, but my intentions are good. Why do I feel like I am being told that I am a trouble maker? I don’t know what else to say, but maybe sorry If I offended you or SH in any way, that certainly wasn’t my intent.

1 Like

@CherryPopNames, the response was not to your specific post, but a collective response/ update on this topic. There is no offense taken at all, infact - your points are valid. You should feel comfortable in openly sharing your opinion, even if you disagree with any of our policies. In this case, we don’t actually have a differing opinion on the overall objective, so your points are completely relevant to the discussion.

3 Likes

Maybe if 3 stars were given points it would even it out some for those of us who are truly trying to find the perfect name. It wouldn’t benefit or reward those who are just throwing in the names you mentioned above as I can’t imagine they would be rated a 3 star. Doesn’t seem to be much leeway right now to try to grasp what the CH is looking for. I’m not sure they know the type of name their looking for until they see them.

3 Likes

Hi,
First of all I would like to thank SH for providing a platform for creators like me to show the talent and at the same time giving an opportunity to earn.

I am new comer to SH, just joined in the first week of this month. I would like to provide my feedback on a new point system:

For contestant like me, to be a winner is most important rather to accumulate points. Earlier, I could not able to understand the logic behind the point system until you introduced the new system of highlighting best entries. I strongly believe that each contestant submits an entry to the best of his/her capability and for him/her each submission deserves to be a winning entry.

So there is no point or logic of submitting low quality entries. It is in the eyes of CH whether any particular entry suits to his/her requirement or not. Even some of the CHs make so many changes in between of the contest; this too, affects the ratings.

I feel that the negative point system is just a barrier in creative thinking. Only after rating, one could get an idea if he/she is on the right track or not. Normally, in a new contest, after a lot of creative thinking, I submit 4 to 6 entries and wait for CH’s rating so that I could get an idea if I am on right track and whether I need to rethink or not. (For me, all of my entries deserve to be the winners)

So, I request you to re-look of your points system; however, I am submitting my suggestions as mentioned below:

  1. There should not be any points for participating in a new contest.
  2. Only entries rated by CH to 3*, 4* and 5* SHOULD GET POINTS. In this way only eligible contestants will get points.
  3. Entries rated by CH to 2* or 1* should not be given any points and in the same way there SHOULD NOT be any NEGATIVE POINTS.
  4. CH should have to give a feedback for rating entries continuously to 2* or 1*, not mandatory for each and every individual rather in the comment section, so the thought process can be aligned. For example, in today’s New contest on “Online Mental Health company name”, the CH has rated almost 93% of entries to 2*/1* (till writing of this reply, total entries rated 225 of which 2* are 172 & 1* are 37) without giving any feedback, I am sure so many contestants would have been affected by negative ratings.

Above mentioned point system will serve your purpose of giving more points to eligible contestants and only one who has points could able to Highlight the Best entries.

Looking forward to have a positive response from your side.

Thanks
Mann

3 Likes

Yet, i have difference of opinion, what about those who don’t do such kind of practices?

Interesting Take Maury (Mann) , I actually like where your head is at,

The only thing this doesn’t prevent is the namers who submit the max entries without much thought to their entries overwhelming the CH with junk names by the time the CH gets to the ones with thought they get fed up and every name now sucks and other scenarios along this line.

2 Likes

I was blown away by the illustration of the use of name generators and all of those “micro” names. I think anyone who does that should be given a stern warning and/or put on “probation.”

That kind of so-called “creativity” makes the rest of us look bad and I can see how a Client would feel frustrated and overwhelmed.

Name Generators? Sheesh! (LOL)

3 Likes

Thanks Seezall for understanding the massage what i wanted to convey.

1 Like

Dear Jose, you have taken my msg altogether in a different way. Had it only related to me, i would not have written to this forum instead would have written personally to SH.
I just wanted to convey a massage that there should not be a space for NEGATIVITY in CREATIVITY.

1 Like

Mann, I agree that well-meaning contestants shouldn’t be punished for trying, well at least not too severely.

In the old Point System, I was able to do a “Two steps back. Three steps forward.” I felt that was fair, it didn’t bother me much. I simply thought of it as sunny or cloudy weather.

I agree with @Tammy. 3-stars should be given points as a way to regain from 2-stars losses. Maybe 3-stars could replace the flat 40 points just for entering.

7 Likes

@Mann. Thanks so much for taking the time to “add value” to the process of getting the points system fleshed out so that it accomplishes many meaningful objectives. You have several important and valid “points” in your post. And a thank you to Seezall & Front for offering constructive replies to Mann’s post, replies that “further” the forum discussion thread in a positive way and encourage participation in such discussions. Best regards…

2 Likes

@Dan; Perhaps we could all start out with say 10 entries for example, then for each 4 and or 5 stars we received for that particular contest we would be alloted 10 or 15 more entries to work with in hopes of bettering our chances to come up with a winner for the ch.

*Keeping in mind that not all ch’s rate and the majority of ch’s that do vary greatly. Meaning ch’s can rate anywhere from 15 to 450, so in order for the proposed system to work ch’s would need to be mandated to rate at least half of all entries, or a forfeiture of contract could be implemented by sh. Thus, a ch could be penalized with an added fee onto the initial payment.

Just thinking out loud…thanxs.

1 Like

Actually, the naming site Crowdspring has a system where contestants are initially allowed to submit up to 10 entries. If any of the entries are rated high enough, the contestant is allowed to submit more entries. There are of course pros and cons to the CS system. It definitely would keep the amount of spam down, but a contestant might need at least 11 or 12 names to hit on a good idea.
I still maintain that the majority of contestants who have achieved 30-40 entry submission did so because they didn’t submit spam and did so because of their 3s, 4s, and 5s and winnings. Bring back points for 3s! :disappointed_relieved:

6 Likes

Maybe it would be a good idea to flesh out some kind of “running list” of point system suggestions to find a little consensus and organize this for Dan. If you all think this would be productive, please add, adjust, and keep on passing it forward? I’ll start it, continue process if you like. Common themes that I’ve been hearing would suggest:
1. Reduce the level of negative points on 1 & 2 stars - the math doesn’t add up. Unless all the stars line up, ie. the breif is great, the type of name is one that is conducive to finding “the mark”, the CH grades sensibly/fairly, etc., it’s just too easy to end up in a hole that is impossible to dig out of, ultimately creating an environment that doesn’t allow you to embrace the creative spirit and think outside the box/try non-literal names, etc.
2. Give points for 3 stars - first there probably should be a reward for our creative success in finding the direction that the CH desires, and make actual progress toward the CH’s goal. Secondly, regardless of the arrived upon negative point levels there has to be a way to work yourself out of the hole (too unrealistic to do that with 4 & 5’s), otherwise it’s not conducive for trying out truly creative ideas or “pushing” through the process of finding the CH’s “mark” (they don’t offer enought feedback to help us very often). I like the idea stated by Tammy/Front about 3’s being the needed amount to cancel the losses on 2 star deductions.

Please take it from here (if you like), edit, add, and pass it forward:
1. Reduce the level of negative points on 1 & 2 star entries.
2. Give points for 3’s, ideally enought to cancel out a 2 star deduction.

5 Likes

We have heard from some contest holders that they are being challenged about their choice of ratings by few contestants. This was not the intention of the changes to the point system. If the contest holders don’t feel comfortable in rating the entires because they would be confronted or challenged about their choice, this will have an opposite effect than intended.

It is clear that the recent changes to the point system have added a level of stress which was not the intention. We will be making some immediate changes to the point system, and implement other means to limit the low quality submissions. Will announce the changes shorty, however in the meantime, if there are concerns about point system, please voice them in this forum instead of taking it up with the contest holders.

6 Likes

Hi Dan, for us as creative we must be assured that what ratings we are given by the CH are consistent with your rating guidelines otherwise its like having an umpire change the strike zone every pitch so it just confuses us as to what the CH is looking for

2 Likes

Right. In the past, 2s were not a big deal. The CHs just didn’t want to use the entry, and no harm was done. Now: they have a bigger impact than ones used to. And from what we’ve been hearing, a disproportionate amount of the ratings are 2s.

3 Likes

I have created a new topic for changes to the Point System.