I agree, because the participants spend time and energy on their work
Yes, I myself have been preparing my work for a long time, but I didn’t have enough points to win prizes, so I wasted my time
What are you, boy, completely insane?
0voters
Okay guys, contests are good, competition, finding a better job, and so on.
But as practice has shown, the jury’s assessments can vary greatly (from “rejected” to 10 points) - real decentralization in action. Probably this is how it should be (though this is also due to the fact that the jury members and the conducted contests are from different professional fields, so we observe something like: birds evaluate turtles (or vice versa) - this is how it is, this is reality.
But in complex contests, all participants spend a lot of time preparing their work. (uh, I even wrote an essay for several days, but we’re not talking about me now) Therefore the suggestion:
Pledging a small reward for works that were not included in the main prize pool. This condition must be indicated in the contest in the same way as the payment terms for the jury: For instance,
10% of the prize fund is distributed among the works of participants who were not included in the main prize pool, provided that no more than 50% of the jury rejected this work.
Further, this 10% is distributed either evenly.
Or in proportion to the points received, provided that 1 point = the arithmetic mean of the total amount of additional reward to the total number of points of participants who were not included in the main prize pool.
Also a condition: The participant of the additional reward cannot receive a reward more than the participant of the main prize fund.
What is this for?
-Conforms to the main principle of the community: the contribution must be appreciated.
-In order to leave a positive experience for the participants. And positive experience is the most important thing, this is what all marketers of the planet are fighting for. Risks:
An increase in the number of substandard works?
Perhaps, but if the work is rated, it can be rewarded.
If the work is rejected by the jury, then it does not correspond and will not receive an award Notes:
I don’t think that this type of award should be in light contests (like essays). But in difficult ones, where certain skills and time are required, and the number of participants can be large compared to the number of prizes - this type of award is necessary. I also propose to express your point of view in the comments \ or add amendments to this proposal
Recently, the number of participants in contests has been growing. But the number of prizes remains the same. And even in the prize places, the awards distributed disproportionately.
Therefore, this disappointed with many contestants.
I agree with your proposal and would like to add a mechanism for distributing rewards based on the number of participants.
For example, an amount of 100,000 tons as a prize pool.
The participant taking the last place gets a fixed 1 TON. The reward for the rest of the participants will be proportionally increased with the expectation that the total amount of all was 100,000 TONs.
For example:
We have 10 participants and 100000 TONs prize pool.
The reward will be:
1 place - 19998 TONs
2 place - 17776 TONs
3 place - 15554 TONs
4 place - 13332 TONs
5 place - 11110 TONs
6 place - 8888 TONs
7 place - 6666 TONs
8 place - 4444 TONs
9 place - 2222 TONs
10 place - 1 TON (it is the fixed reward for the last place)
I think that’s fair. And everyone will be with the prize and get a positive impression of the competition.
This method works even if there are 1000 participants. Yes, then the amount of the prize will be less, but more distribution of tokens among interested persons.
Therefore, additional benefits:
greater distribution of tokens among people interested in the project.
automatic regulation of the number of participants according to the principle of negative feedback: less reward-> fewer participants-> more reward-> more participants-> less reward (the circle is closed)
Total prize pool can be distributed between all contestants proportionate to their average score. In this way all contestant will get prize according to quality of their submission.
10 to 20 winners in each competition. And when there will be 100-200-300 and even more participants. Reward everyone? Not even quality work? And it will turn out “I will put a blot all the same I will get a TONE.”
Basically, the main meaning of the contest is not lost. There are main big prizes for 10-20 participants.
Others get a pleasant experience in the form of several crystals. These are early participants, supporters - this is a reward for being active.
You just need to be more flexible. This condition is not necessary for all contests, but for some contests this approach is necessary.
Again, the work is only eligible for reward if it is not rejected by the jury.
Let’s remember the experience with stickers, landing pages and other resource-intensive contests - would the participants be more happy if they also received some crystals? - undoubtedly.
A categorical approach - kills the desire of people to be active.
I mean, there is no need to divide this world only into black and white. There are many other shades.
And the difference between 20 and 21 works (the last one in the prize pool and the first one that remains without a reward) is a statistical error.
There are many nuances and I think that we are ready to introduce such a rule. This will give people the desire to participate in the life of the project, to be active.
Again, these are early adopters, people who form a community. This is one of the awards - a small one, a few crystals, but it shows that the project is for everyone. Not just for those in cahoots with the jury
Well, i will agree on this mate because this is always happens in other forum and many members are being interested in this kind of contest, as of now cryptotalk having a contest which is having a cryptotalk theme, it has a same format given above but they used btc.
