I do like the idea of the weighted draw but it gets a little crazy when someone posts 200+ times a day. The weighted posts also get people more active and it can be a fun time on the forum. A say max it out at 10-20 a day.
Giveaway ideas - have your say in how we run them
- Thread starter low_tar_neil
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If it were me, I'd allow one entry per contestant.
Use a randomizer to pick the number of winners needed.
If you won in the past 90 days, you are not eligible.
Ever listen to the radio giveaway rules?
I personally don't participate in social media entries. I don't tweet, Instagram, etc. Donators likely have contests/giveaways on social media anyway.
I understand that the 'regulars' have and do contribute to the forum. I also understand that the donators of the prizes likely aren't wanting to 'pay' the regulars for their participation.
I'd keep it very simple, no weighting of entries, no sliding scales, no preferred entries.
Simple is easy to understand and understanding is key to acceptance.
Use a randomizer to pick the number of winners needed.
If you won in the past 90 days, you are not eligible.
Ever listen to the radio giveaway rules?
I personally don't participate in social media entries. I don't tweet, Instagram, etc. Donators likely have contests/giveaways on social media anyway.
I understand that the 'regulars' have and do contribute to the forum. I also understand that the donators of the prizes likely aren't wanting to 'pay' the regulars for their participation.
I'd keep it very simple, no weighting of entries, no sliding scales, no preferred entries.
Simple is easy to understand and understanding is key to acceptance.
I think you're already doing it the best way. I have only participated in one big give away since I have been a member, and I did win. But the drawing I won in had more people with fewer post counts than higher. I know a contest for free stuff on a site with this many people will move very quickly, however, the one I was in could have been a lot more fun without a lot of the spam that was going on and the posting just to increase one's post count. I don't know of a way to moderate that and still be fair. Any rule like "No spam" or "Only posts with content" or "Coherent conversation only" will be subjective. Perhaps a good rule would be "No back to back posts." I think that would encourage better conversation while also limiting the spam.
I agree with clarifying the rules for a contest whatever they may be, .
Then I can decide how much/little I want to participate.
There will always be those who are unhappy with the rules but such is life.
Exactly, then it will be up to you how much you post.
As the saying goes....... “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”
Sir, I'm not going to start an argument with you but you really need to re read what I wrote and then you will see I answered your question
Also you will find another member answered your question
I've already said what I would like done a few times but clearly your eyesight isn't very good so I will type bigger just for you
I've said it before, the rules need to be made clearer.
If it's one post which counts as the only entry then state that.
If it's more posts = more entries then state that.
Have a nice day
For me, I don't care what the rules are, as long as I know them. For instance, I didn't know that you had more chances when posting more, haven't seen that in the opening post. This will not encourage me to go on a spamming rampage but it would be nice to know
This!!!!
That would be an awesome way of doing it. Me I am happy just that I was given a chance regardless
Part of the problem is the contest and who wins, but the other part is that the threads are just out of control. Typically 10 members have 50% of the posts in the whole thread.
In the last contest, there were 416 members that posted in the thread. 203 of them (half) had only 1 post. Why is that? Because they post once, see that it's mainly just a mad flurry of non-sensical posts by a small group of members and they don't come back. Is that good for the forum? (for the record, there's currently 150 members in the current contest with only 1 post)
The top 10 posters in the last contest accounted for 45% of the posts in the entire thread. In the current contest, the top 7 posters have over half the posts. The contests have just become a playground for 10 or 15 members to chit chat.
As a result, a very large segment of members don't even come to the contest threads any more. They were started as a means of driving traffic and they've resulted in just the opposite.
Nobody wants to post and then come back an hour later and see that in order to catch up with the discussion they have to read another 500 posts (by 5 people).
In the last contest, there were 416 members that posted in the thread. 203 of them (half) had only 1 post. Why is that? Because they post once, see that it's mainly just a mad flurry of non-sensical posts by a small group of members and they don't come back. Is that good for the forum? (for the record, there's currently 150 members in the current contest with only 1 post)
The top 10 posters in the last contest accounted for 45% of the posts in the entire thread. In the current contest, the top 7 posters have over half the posts. The contests have just become a playground for 10 or 15 members to chit chat.
As a result, a very large segment of members don't even come to the contest threads any more. They were started as a means of driving traffic and they've resulted in just the opposite.
Nobody wants to post and then come back an hour later and see that in order to catch up with the discussion they have to read another 500 posts (by 5 people).
ok, so do we cap it at 10/20 posts per day that count towards the weighted draw, and after that more posts doesn't equal more chances?
You could certainly have a cap, but if you allow posting beyond that cap, it becomes very difficult on YOU (someone would have to go through the thread and determine how many posts each user had and which were eligible and which were not - it would be a very complicated process).
I see your point, I wonder if I can get Toby to code something so we can do it automatically, not impossible, he's pretty good
So, is it "just a mad flurry of non-sensical posts" or is it "a discussion" that would compel someone to think they have to "catch up" with 500 posts in order to participate?
I usually just jump right in and discuss whatever's going on in the last page or two. It's always fun and I've never felt that I couldn't participate no matter how little or how many were posting.
I see your point, I wonder if I can get Toby to code something so we can do it automatically, not impossible, he's pretty good
It also wouldn't address how so many posts are between so few. These folks are also the vocal majority. Yes, the contests can be fun. But, if we ask the 213 members from the last contest that had 1 post how much fun it was, the answer will probably be different then the response from the 15 or 20 people who are the most active (in the contest threads and in this one).
Genius! Not everyone has the time or inclination to post 500+ times per contest!
I don't think anyone knows, cause you'd have to read most of the posts to come to that conclusion and nobody can (well, maybe one person).
The only issue I would see with setting a cap would be where to set it. If you set it too low, it would be too easy for everyone to hit that cap (I know there are some who wouldn't) and then what would be the point? If you set it too high, you're not really doing anything either. Both cases just result in more work on the moderator.
some of us have never won anything....if you've previously won, then you are in a secondary list, after the 1st list of winners have awarded.
- Status
