froggy12010 wrote:

Username: froggy12010
Why you'd like to judge: I think it would be fun for me to try judging
Main or backup judge: I dont have one

this kinda closed down, I think….

Whens the summer shopetition up?

Here's what I think about the Shopetition, as a former member of staff for a shop that has since closed down, but had entered the Shopetition while it was running.
This whole thing was a bit of a mess.

CHAPTER 1: THE FLAWS FROM THE START

The Shopetition was well promoted in my opinion - enough shops joined for it to run fairly quickly, which is a sign of good promotion.
But the rules were flawed from the start. Round One was a group stage - there were three groups of three shops each. You scored one point if you got an 8/10 review, two points for 9/10, three for 10/10. I've paraphrased the rules, there were a couple more but they aren't important. Go read them anyway, though, for a better understanding. That's not too bad until you consider the following scenario:
Shop A, Shop B, and Shop C, are in one group together. Shop B and Shop C both begin receiving orders and it's a back-and-forth battle. That's all well and good, but Shop A haven't received any orders since the Shopetition started. They're sat there waiting for an order.
No points to Shop A. They're eliminated. And the sad part is? That actually happened.
You also weren't allowed to count orders placed before the Shopetition, which I think is quite unfair if we're deeming this a competition on “quality and service”. Theoretically, it shouldn't affect things if the order was placed before the Shopetition, as bending the deadline to the Shopetition would affect the review anyway.
This meant there was a ridiculous backlog to work through for popular shops because they had to complete their existing orders, or they'd get a huge drop in reputation. But you have to still do new orders to score points, and it's all a bit of a mess.
Now, this could easily have been fixed. How? With an AVERAGE system. You take ALL the reviews a shop has received during the Shopetition, and get the average number. That way it's not a popularity contest.
And this was brought up many times. And you didn't even once add a suggestion like you said you would consider.
Plus, one last thing, why were review orders (orders placed by the SSRF for example, a monthly order solely for the purpose of being reviewed) not allowed? That's basically a popularity contest, as those orders are EXACTLY THE SAME as any other. They actually prove the quality and service MORE than a random review, as it's given by a fair reviewer.

CHAPTER 2: THE TIEBREAKER

This part was a bit ridiculous. There were MULTIPLE ties in the first round. As a result, we needed a tiebreaker. Now, the second round - bear with me here - involved two shops completing he same order placed by the Shopetition. The best one progresses.
You could have done that to break the ties. But no, you went for NUMBER SELECTION.
And bear in mind this had stakes. The reward was “Best Shop of the Season”, and although you didn't allow excessive bragging, it still happened, and you didn't act upon it.
Eventually a couple shops made it through and a couple were eliminated. That had to happen, but never in this way.

CHAPTER 3: THE JUDGING

Where do I start? We were on to the second round, you know the rules, and the judges…weren't there. They hadn't been hired prior to the competition - they were hired IN BETWEEN ROUNDS. Multiple judges applied, including me, and got in.
But only two shops ever got judged, because it was all a bit disorganized. And eventually? Radiosilence on your part - you were gone. The judges were left to judge, the round incomplete, and people still applying. Come May, the Winter Shopetition hadn't even got to the finals, like it should have in February.
It was all over, and we weren't even at the finish line.

CHAPTER 4: WHAT WE MISSED

The Shopetition inspired some more shop competitions. But you? You were greedy and decided to try and outlaw all similar competitions, pushing the “rules” on people who were just evolving the concept. And after they proved uniquity, or that you were in the wrong, you said it was never legally binding.
And you hid behind the fact that it was a “casual competition” and “not to find loopholes or be competitive”. But you can't do that if the system is awful from the start.
And I'm sorry for calling it awful, I just think you really didn't think it through, and didn't decide to amend it after people gave suggestions.
And you caused a ridiculous amount of annoyance and worry, at least on me. Can't imagine what the shop owners were like.
I'm happy for you to continue the Shopetition if you revise the rules. But PLEASE, don't make it so imbalanced.

Mozboz wrote:

Here's what I think about the Shopetition, as a former member of staff for a shop that has since closed down, but had entered the Shopetition while it was running.
This whole thing was a bit of a mess.

CHAPTER 1: THE FLAWS FROM THE START

The Shopetition was well promoted in my opinion - enough shops joined for it to run fairly quickly, which is a sign of good promotion.
But the rules were flawed from the start. Round One was a group stage - there were three groups of three shops each. You scored one point if you got an 8/10 review, two points for 9/10, three for 10/10. I've paraphrased the rules, there were a couple more but they aren't important. Go read them anyway, though, for a better understanding. That's not too bad until you consider the following scenario:
Shop A, Shop B, and Shop C, are in one group together. Shop B and Shop C both begin receiving orders and it's a back-and-forth battle. That's all well and good, but Shop A haven't received any orders since the Shopetition started. They're sat there waiting for an order.
No points to Shop A. They're eliminated. And the sad part is? That actually happened.
You also weren't allowed to count orders placed before the Shopetition, which I think is quite unfair if we're deeming this a competition on “quality and service”. Theoretically, it shouldn't affect things if the order was placed before the Shopetition, as bending the deadline to the Shopetition would affect the review anyway.
This meant there was a ridiculous backlog to work through for popular shops because they had to complete their existing orders, or they'd get a huge drop in reputation. But you have to still do new orders to score points, and it's all a bit of a mess.
Now, this could easily have been fixed. How? With an AVERAGE system. You take ALL the reviews a shop has received during the Shopetition, and get the average number. That way it's not a popularity contest.
And this was brought up many times. And you didn't even once add a suggestion like you said you would consider.
Plus, one last thing, why were review orders (orders placed by the SSRF for example, a monthly order solely for the purpose of being reviewed) not allowed? That's basically a popularity contest, as those orders are EXACTLY THE SAME as any other. They actually prove the quality and service MORE than a random review, as it's given by a fair reviewer.

CHAPTER 2: THE TIEBREAKER

This part was a bit ridiculous. There were MULTIPLE ties in the first round. As a result, we needed a tiebreaker. Now, the second round - bear with me here - involved two shops completing he same order placed by the Shopetition. The best one progresses.
You could have done that to break the ties. But no, you went for NUMBER SELECTION.
And bear in mind this had stakes. The reward was “Best Shop of the Season”, and although you didn't allow excessive bragging, it still happened, and you didn't act upon it.
Eventually a couple shops made it through and a couple were eliminated. That had to happen, but never in this way.

CHAPTER 3: THE JUDGING

Where do I start? We were on to the second round, you know the rules, and the judges…weren't there. They hadn't been hired prior to the competition - they were hired IN BETWEEN ROUNDS. Multiple judges applied, including me, and got in.
But only two shops ever got judged, because it was all a bit disorganized. And eventually? Radiosilence on your part - you were gone. The judges were left to judge, the round incomplete, and people still applying. Come May, the Winter Shopetition hadn't even got to the finals, like it should have in February.
It was all over, and we weren't even at the finish line.

CHAPTER 4: WHAT WE MISSED

The Shopetition inspired some more shop competitions. But you? You were greedy and decided to try and outlaw all similar competitions, pushing the “rules” on people who were just evolving the concept. And after they proved uniquity, or that you were in the wrong, you said it was never legally binding.
And you hid behind the fact that it was a “casual competition” and “not to find loopholes or be competitive”. But you can't do that if the system is awful from the start.
And I'm sorry for calling it awful, I just think you really didn't think it through, and didn't decide to amend it after people gave suggestions.
And you caused a ridiculous amount of annoyance and worry, at least on me. Can't imagine what the shop owners were like.
I'm happy for you to continue the Shopetition if you revise the rules. But PLEASE, don't make it so imbalanced.

that is all true

Mozboz wrote:

(#244)
-snip-

All true. As the owner of a competitor last time around, I am seriously considering not competing this time.

2016s4m29 wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

(#244)
-snip-

All true. As the owner of a competitor last time around, I am seriously considering not competing this time.

no lets make a new one with new owner different name

QwertyMissed287 wrote:

I think you should restart and make a bunch of orders that shops take and post them on the 1st page so shops can take up to 3 each day and the higher the difficulty on the order the more points you get for completing it well

@MozBoz this was my idea back during the winter 2024 on page 5 (aka here)

JDubs323 wrote:

2016s4m29 wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

(#244)
-snip-

All true. As the owner of a competitor last time around, I am seriously considering not competing this time.

no lets make a new one with new owner different name

you need permission from bombarding

QwertyMissed287 wrote:

JDubs323 wrote:

2016s4m29 wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

(#244)
-snip-

All true. As the owner of a competitor last time around, I am seriously considering not competing this time.

no lets make a new one with new owner different name

you need permission from bombarding

No, you don't. Different name, different owner, similar rules, is fine. That “copyright” was meaningless, @bombardingppl even said so.

I'm planning on starting the Summer Shopetition, which means that in some time, you will have the opportunity to compete. I would appreciate feedback on the winter Shopetition, and suggestions for how the group stage should go would be greatly appreciated, since that was the most problematic part. This season, I'm not going to be offering other users to host the event, but next time, I might. For those who want to create a similar event to the Shopetition, I, personally would not. There are several reasons why. First, most shops in your events will likely be part of the Shopetition, meaning that the shops will have a greater struggle trying to compete in two events. Also, it's more likely that shops will sign up for the Shopetition than other events, since they likely participated this winter. Even if the events occur at different times, having just one event could be better because it makes it feel like a rare occurrence, similar to how the World Cup feels more valuable than the Super Bowl to many people because it occurs four times less often. For those reasons, I would not create another version of the Shopetition. Hopefully, the Summer Shopetition can begin and be more enjoyable.

Please leave feedback on the Shopetition from last winter if you participated. Honorable Mention: @Mozboz

bombardingppl wrote:

I'm planning on starting the Summer Shopetition, which means that in some time, you will have the opportunity to compete. I would appreciate feedback on the winter Shopetition, and suggestions for how the group stage should go would be greatly appreciated, since that was the most problematic part. This season, I'm not going to be offering other users to host the event, but next time, I might. For those who want to create a similar event to the Shopetition, I, personally would not. There are several reasons why. First, most shops in your events will likely be part of the Shopetition, meaning that the shops will have a greater struggle trying to compete in two events. Also, it's more likely that shops will sign up for the Shopetition than other events, since they likely participated this winter. Even if the events occur at different times, having just one event could be better because it makes it feel like a rare occurrence, similar to how the World Cup feels more valuable than the Super Bowl to many people because it occurs four times less often. For those reasons, I would not create another version of the Shopetition. Hopefully, the Summer Shopetition can begin and be more enjoyable.

Please leave feedback on the Shopetition from last winter if you participated. Honorable Mention: @Mozboz

here is the thing are you going to be active? and make it thro the hole season

Feedback in bold

Mozboz wrote:

Here's what I think about the Shopetition, as a former member of staff for a shop that has since closed down, but had entered the Shopetition while it was running.
This whole thing was a bit of a mess.

CHAPTER 1: THE FLAWS FROM THE START

The Shopetition was well promoted in my opinion - enough shops joined for it to run fairly quickly, which is a sign of good promotion.
But the rules were flawed from the start. Round One was a group stage - there were three groups of three shops each. You scored one point if you got an 8/10 review, two points for 9/10, three for 10/10. I've paraphrased the rules, there were a couple more but they aren't important. Go read them anyway, though, for a better understanding. That's not too bad until you consider the following scenario:
Shop A, Shop B, and Shop C, are in one group together. Shop B and Shop C both begin receiving orders and it's a back-and-forth battle. That's all well and good, but Shop A haven't received any orders since the Shopetition started. They're sat there waiting for an order.
No points to Shop A. They're eliminated. And the sad part is? That actually happened.
You also weren't allowed to count orders placed before the Shopetition, which I think is quite unfair if we're deeming this a competition on “quality and service”. Theoretically, it shouldn't affect things if the order was placed before the Shopetition, as bending the deadline to the Shopetition would affect the review anyway.
This meant there was a ridiculous backlog to work through for popular shops because they had to complete their existing orders, or they'd get a huge drop in reputation. But you have to still do new orders to score points, and it's all a bit of a mess.
True. The group stage was really messy, and some shops didn't get any orders. However, I didn't want points to come from orders that were already started from before the Shopetition, meaning there could have been a head start for some of the orders. That was why I wanted to implement a period for orders to be finished before the start of the Shopetition so that shops wouldn't have so much weight on their backs just as they started. Except the time period was too short, which is why I want to make a longer period of time for shops to complete orders before they start the competition.
Now, this could easily have been fixed. How? With an AVERAGE system. You take ALL the reviews a shop has received during the Shopetition, and get the average number. That way it's not a popularity contest.
I've considered this a few times, and it wouldn't work. Yes, it's true that popular shops will get more orders and higher points, but by using an average system, by getting just one 10/10 review and not getting any more, they would automatically get the highest possible score. That means that shops could focus on very few orders to get the maximum score.
And this was brought up many times. And you didn't even once add a suggestion like you said you would consider.
Plus, one last thing, why were review orders (orders placed by the SSRF for example, a monthly order solely for the purpose of being reviewed) not allowed? That's basically a popularity contest, as those orders are EXACTLY THE SAME as any other. They actually prove the quality and service MORE than a random review, as it's given by a fair reviewer.

CHAPTER 2: THE TIEBREAKER

This part was a bit ridiculous. There were MULTIPLE ties in the first round. As a result, we needed a tiebreaker. Now, the second round - bear with me here - involved two shops completing he same order placed by the Shopetition. The best one progresses.
You could have done that to break the ties. But no, you went for NUMBER SELECTION.
And bear in mind this had stakes. The reward was “Best Shop of the Season”, and although you didn't allow excessive bragging, it still happened, and you didn't act upon it.
Eventually a couple shops made it through and a couple were eliminated. That had to happen, but never in this way.
Yes, I didn't like it at all either. It was hard to choose a tiebreaker, but if anybody has any suggestions, I would gladly accept them. One solution could be a tiebreaker order, but there could be a better option.

CHAPTER 3: THE JUDGING

Where do I start? We were on to the second round, you know the rules, and the judges…weren't there. They hadn't been hired prior to the competition - they were hired IN BETWEEN ROUNDS. Multiple judges applied, including me, and got in.
The judges were selected during the Shopetition because they weren't needed until the knockout stage. That's why they were decided then.
But only two shops ever got judged, because it was all a bit disorganized. And eventually? Radiosilence on your part - you were gone. The judges were left to judge, the round incomplete, and people still applying. Come May, the Winter Shopetition hadn't even got to the finals, like it should have in February.
It was all over, and we weren't even at the finish line.
It was mostly because the judges turned out to be inactive. There was not enough communication on my part, so this time, I think if more time is spent communicating, it could be much cleaner.

CHAPTER 4: WHAT WE MISSED

The Shopetition inspired some more shop competitions. But you? You were greedy and decided to try and outlaw all similar competitions, pushing the “rules” on people who were just evolving the concept. And after they proved uniquity, or that you were in the wrong, you said it was never legally binding.
And you hid behind the fact that it was a “casual competition” and “not to find loopholes or be competitive”. But you can't do that if the system is awful from the start.
I never tried to be greedy to keep my shop competition unique, but it was really just because the other ones didn't even have a set of rules. Yes, ours wasn't the best, but theirs didn't exist, implying that it was assumed that the rules were to be exactly copied from mine. I didn't want exact copies. I didn't want the Shopetition to be special or anything, it's just that the other ones felt extremely similar.
And I'm sorry for calling it awful, I just think you really didn't think it through, and didn't decide to amend it after people gave suggestions.
And you caused a ridiculous amount of annoyance and worry, at least on me. Can't imagine what the shop owners were like.
I'm happy for you to continue the Shopetition if you revise the rules. But PLEASE, don't make it so imbalanced.
It was the first ever time ever trying anything close to that, which is why I think so much went wrong. I've learned a ton, so next season should be much cleaner. Mozboz, would you like to help make decisions and plans for the next season to keep it fair and balanced?

bombardingppl wrote:

Feedback in bold

Mozboz wrote:

Here's what I think about the Shopetition, as a former member of staff for a shop that has since closed down, but had entered the Shopetition while it was running.
This whole thing was a bit of a mess.

CHAPTER 1: THE FLAWS FROM THE START

The Shopetition was well promoted in my opinion - enough shops joined for it to run fairly quickly, which is a sign of good promotion.
But the rules were flawed from the start. Round One was a group stage - there were three groups of three shops each. You scored one point if you got an 8/10 review, two points for 9/10, three for 10/10. I've paraphrased the rules, there were a couple more but they aren't important. Go read them anyway, though, for a better understanding. That's not too bad until you consider the following scenario:
Shop A, Shop B, and Shop C, are in one group together. Shop B and Shop C both begin receiving orders and it's a back-and-forth battle. That's all well and good, but Shop A haven't received any orders since the Shopetition started. They're sat there waiting for an order.
No points to Shop A. They're eliminated. And the sad part is? That actually happened.
You also weren't allowed to count orders placed before the Shopetition, which I think is quite unfair if we're deeming this a competition on “quality and service”. Theoretically, it shouldn't affect things if the order was placed before the Shopetition, as bending the deadline to the Shopetition would affect the review anyway.
This meant there was a ridiculous backlog to work through for popular shops because they had to complete their existing orders, or they'd get a huge drop in reputation. But you have to still do new orders to score points, and it's all a bit of a mess.
True. The group stage was really messy, and some shops didn't get any orders. However, I didn't want points to come from orders that were already started from before the Shopetition, meaning there could have been a head start for some of the orders. That was why I wanted to implement a period for orders to be finished before the start of the Shopetition so that shops wouldn't have so much weight on their backs just as they started. Except the time period was too short, which is why I want to make a longer period of time for shops to complete orders before they start the competition.
Now, this could easily have been fixed. How? With an AVERAGE system. You take ALL the reviews a shop has received during the Shopetition, and get the average number. That way it's not a popularity contest.
I've considered this a few times, and it wouldn't work. Yes, it's true that popular shops will get more orders and higher points, but by using an average system, by getting just one 10/10 review and not getting any more, they would automatically get the highest possible score. That means that shops could focus on very few orders to get the maximum score.
And this was brought up many times. And you didn't even once add a suggestion like you said you would consider.
Plus, one last thing, why were review orders (orders placed by the SSRF for example, a monthly order solely for the purpose of being reviewed) not allowed? That's basically a popularity contest, as those orders are EXACTLY THE SAME as any other. They actually prove the quality and service MORE than a random review, as it's given by a fair reviewer.

CHAPTER 2: THE TIEBREAKER

This part was a bit ridiculous. There were MULTIPLE ties in the first round. As a result, we needed a tiebreaker. Now, the second round - bear with me here - involved two shops completing he same order placed by the Shopetition. The best one progresses.
You could have done that to break the ties. But no, you went for NUMBER SELECTION.
And bear in mind this had stakes. The reward was “Best Shop of the Season”, and although you didn't allow excessive bragging, it still happened, and you didn't act upon it.
Eventually a couple shops made it through and a couple were eliminated. That had to happen, but never in this way.
Yes, I didn't like it at all either. It was hard to choose a tiebreaker, but if anybody has any suggestions, I would gladly accept them. One solution could be a tiebreaker order, but there could be a better option.

CHAPTER 3: THE JUDGING

Where do I start? We were on to the second round, you know the rules, and the judges…weren't there. They hadn't been hired prior to the competition - they were hired IN BETWEEN ROUNDS. Multiple judges applied, including me, and got in.
The judges were selected during the Shopetition because they weren't needed until the knockout stage. That's why they were decided then.
But only two shops ever got judged, because it was all a bit disorganized. And eventually? Radiosilence on your part - you were gone. The judges were left to judge, the round incomplete, and people still applying. Come May, the Winter Shopetition hadn't even got to the finals, like it should have in February.
It was all over, and we weren't even at the finish line.
It was mostly because the judges turned out to be inactive. There was not enough communication on my part, so this time, I think if more time is spent communicating, it could be much cleaner.

CHAPTER 4: WHAT WE MISSED

The Shopetition inspired some more shop competitions. But you? You were greedy and decided to try and outlaw all similar competitions, pushing the “rules” on people who were just evolving the concept. And after they proved uniquity, or that you were in the wrong, you said it was never legally binding.
And you hid behind the fact that it was a “casual competition” and “not to find loopholes or be competitive”. But you can't do that if the system is awful from the start.
I never tried to be greedy to keep my shop competition unique, but it was really just because the other ones didn't even have a set of rules. Yes, ours wasn't the best, but theirs didn't exist, implying that it was assumed that the rules were to be exactly copied from mine. I didn't want exact copies. I didn't want the Shopetition to be special or anything, it's just that the other ones felt extremely similar.
And I'm sorry for calling it awful, I just think you really didn't think it through, and didn't decide to amend it after people gave suggestions.
And you caused a ridiculous amount of annoyance and worry, at least on me. Can't imagine what the shop owners were like.
I'm happy for you to continue the Shopetition if you revise the rules. But PLEASE, don't make it so imbalanced.
It was the first ever time ever trying anything close to that, which is why I think so much went wrong. I've learned a ton, so next season should be much cleaner. Mozboz, would you like to help make decisions and plans for the next season to keep it fair and balanced?

will you be active in the summer shopetition this time

JDubs323 wrote:

-snip-
will you be active in the summer shopetition this time

Yeah, but the rules will have to change.

bombardingppl wrote:

JDubs323 wrote:

-snip-
will you be active in the summer shopetition this time

Yeah, but the rules will have to change.

when do you think that the summer one will start

JDubs323 wrote:

bombardingppl wrote:

JDubs323 wrote:

-snip-
will you be active in the summer shopetition this time

Yeah, but the rules will have to change.

when do you think that the summer one will start

Probably officially starts mid-June. Applications will begin in early June. So much change is needed.

bombardingppl wrote:

JDubs323 wrote:

bombardingppl wrote:

JDubs323 wrote:

-snip-
will you be active in the summer shopetition this time

Yeah, but the rules will have to change.

when do you think that the summer one will start

Probably officially starts mid-June. Applications will begin in early June. So much change is needed.

I would start sign up now so you get a lot and while there signing up you can make the rules

Hey bombarding, just throwing out my previous idea.

QwertyMissed287 wrote:

I think you should restart and make a bunch of orders that shops take and post them on the 1st page so shops can take up to 3 each day and the higher the difficulty on the order the more points you get for completing it well

this is the second best banner i've ever made

of course behind the scratch lab