It would be helpful if ch’s would answer pertinent questions (most do) but here lately I see a lack of communications when an important question has been posted. For instance if they suggesst checking on a certain site for availability, etc…things of that sort?
I’m with you guys. I’m receiving warnings about my rating percentage again (despite over 111500 points as I write this.) I get that submissions aren’t based on your total points, but when the briefs are obscure (not all are) it’s hard to decipher what the CH would consider a good name, and it becomes a guessing game.
Having so many new contests on a daily basis obviously has a silver lining, but it’s hard to focus on any one contest due to this plethora of wealth. Maybe SH ought to take a good look at the contests that are more vague and help them update their briefs? Just a constructive suggestion?
I’ve already said this but I am going to say it again. It matters a LOT where a CH is located AND where they plan to do business (not just one or the other). So often, we get extremely vague briefs that say things like “We make (fill in the blank)” or “We sell a variety of products”. That is not helpful at all. Vagueness on the part of the CH who is just looking for a “variety” of names based on super vague briefs is not helpful. I’m not saying they should write a book but we should at least know what kinds of products to be sold where. CHs need to be required to answer these basic questions.
I’d like to add also: What Languages will you consider.
Thanks for all the great feedback.
We’re starting to work on an update to the Name Brief template. If you have anything further suggestions specific to the brief, please let us know.
For “on the right tracks”… What is on the right track about it?
-I like one word and not the other
For No Thanks WHY???
-Don’t like the URL (I think some CHs reject some names just because they don’t like the domain)
-Hard to pronounce
-Didn’t want a foreign word
For “like” instead of “Love” - What would make you love it???
I don’t know if any of this is even possible. I said the other day that I hope we will revisit the ratings system and I know you guys are working on that. I think we need to eliminate “on the right track” and rename the others for example: “Highly likely to be chosen” for “Love” and “Likely to be chosen” for “Like”. I think that makes the CH think pretty hard about how they rate.
@Commulinks - This is noted, and we’ll do our best.
Any thoughts specifically about the Name Brief?
I don’t think I have any others than what has already been said for the briefs. It would help to see what the brief looks like now in one document so we can see if anything else is missing. Thank you!
Let’s say a hypothetical contest has given unbelievably detailed feedback and a well-written contest brief. At first observation, it looks flawless. The problem I’ve found is that a given CH might reject the majority of the ideas she claims she wanted. This is the problem we had discussed on another thread. I don’t know how the name brief template could be rewritten to address these kinds of situations. Maybe give an option for CHs to suggest that a name sounds like something but should not include certain specific words?
@auntshommy I agree! Sometimes I use the bubble to contact the SH team and ask them for a sort of an “intervention” when I see that a CH is unhappy or not getting the names they want. I don’t do it very often. The circumstances are usually when all names are rejected and/or the CH says something in a message that shows they are distressed. I wonder if it would be possible for SH to add a “Flag” that we contestants could use to tell SH that a CH needs an intervention? I wouldn’t want SH to get flooded with them but at the same time, your point is very well taken. The contest could be paused why “rethinking” happens or something.
@Commulinks - This is an interesting thought. I’ll add it to the list so we can give it further consideration.
I haven’t checked the forum for awhile; that’s actually a great idea.
I am fairly new here when measured in time but ancient when measured in entries. One of the things that I struggle with is the “ending” when it comes to creating a brand name. I know that everyone wants a 4-5 letter word with no vowels that’s exactly like Facebook and evokes a spirit of passion. However, when it comes to an ending, it seems overly complicated. Especially when the ending can make or break domain availability. I am not sure if there is an easy solution. It just seems to me that I could have the same name with 20 different entries i.e. co, ltd, unltd, Corp, design, services, solutions, etc. After I submit my initial entry, I have to ask myself…“Self, should you add a bunch more entries with different endings?”. I usually answer no. However, it would be cool if there were a CH driven solution to this.
@Grant - I just wanted to tell you that the new briefs are a whole lot better and thank you! This was a huge improvement.
It would be so helpful if the “Acceptable Domain Extension(s)”. could somehow be worded differently. I am experiencing confusion by clients that list multiple domain extensions, but if. com isn’t available I can’t use the name. I had this happen on a 2 option domain, got a love it, but had to withdraw bc unknown to me both url had to be available. Maybe word it as acceptable domain but strongly prefer. ×××.Your thoughts please. Thanks
@Marye5 - Yes. This has come up before. I’m open to suggestions, and we’ll give it some thought.
How about during set up the CH decides if they want all chosen domains to be available or atleast one. If they want all domains listed to be available, set the domain checker up (if possible) to check all required domains automatically and if one isn’t available then the entry is blocked.
You guys do such a great job! Maybe word it as such. …I,We will accept the following extensions? Some do state in their brief that .com is a must and some don’t. Much appreciated!
Thanks! I just thought it would be better to “miss” with one entry than 5-10.
As I said, the new briefs are a great improvement. However, I can see that it is still not mandatory for a CH to reveal the country they are from AND where they will do business. I really feel that both should be non-negotiable. The main reasons are language issues and cultural issues that can cause us to have rejected entries or go off on the wrong track and literally waste our time. Please make it mandatory that the CH reveal where they are and where they plan to do business. Thanks.