New Contests - New Rules

TFP Admin · February 19, 2008, 07:11 PM

Alright, we are about to have another contest. And then another one right after that one. But I want to make sure the contests are fair, so we have to come up with some basic rules for the contests. I'm asking for your help.

Just so you know why we even have contests, it is for several important reasons.

To encourage more participation on the forums
To attract new members
To show appreciation for current members who participate
To add to and improve the content we have on the site
To improve our ranking in search engines
To promote products that are new, innovative, or make our work easier and improve quality
To offer incentives for education and a higher level of professionalism

And there are other reasons too. Some contests may just offer fun prizes that have nothing to do with our jobs. Some contest prizes will have great value, others very little. Some contests will require much thought and participation to win, others may require virtually no effort on your part.

No matter what the contest, the rules should be consistently fair to make it possible for any qualified member to win. Many of our contest require the participants and winners to be members, but we have had and will have more in the future, where participation is not required - a give-away or a milestone like being the 5,000^th member, etc. There will be specific rules for each contest, but we do need a short set of rules that apply to all contests and give-aways. This is what I am asking your help with.

Rule 1: Staff members and affiliates of TheFloorPro.com are not eligible for prizes in any open contest (there will be separate contests for staff and affiliates only, although not necessarily in conjunction with an open contest).

Rule 2: Contest winners are ineligible for prizes in any contest for 6 months after their win (if you win a prize today and we start a new contest 6 months from today, you will not be eligible for the prize in that contest, even if the prize is not awarded for 1 or more days after the end of your 6 months waiting period, you still may not win the prize in that contest).

Those are two rules I think are important. Our next contests will start fresh and it won't matter if you have won a prize in the last 6 months. Please add your feedback and ideas for these standard rules. It's not much fun to run a contest that most people think the rules are unfair or make it too difficult for you to win. We don't want easy-win contests (unless it's a straight up give-away), but we don't want it to be impossible either.

Just for your information, our next contest will be to give away a tool made specifically for laminate flooring. Another contest coming up is to award something specifically for ceramic or stone type surfaces. Neither of these will start until these new standard contest rules are established.

Thanks for your help,

TFP Admin

kwfloors · February 19, 2008, 09:18 PM

I was waiting for the next contest to start being as I started about the end of the last one. For someone to play I think members should have a location shared, just my thoughts as I know this has been discussed here before. It doesn't have to be pinpoint on but a state would be a plus.

Daris Mulkin · February 20, 2008, 06:50 AM

I don't usually get into the contests as I'm here to enjoy what everyone has to say and learn what I can and maybe add to what someone else can learn.
But I think the 6 month rule is a little harsh because as you say some prizes maybe "fun" prizes and others maybe of great value. Now a "fun" prize has knocked someone out of the contest for something that will really help out that person. That may also stop that person from adding some great info as he or she knows they don't stand a chance to win anyway. I think if its a new contest its a fresh start for everyone unless the contests are aimed at one special trade or something like that.
This was the first thing that came to mind when I read the rules.

Daris

Floorguy · February 20, 2008, 07:28 AM

I'm disquaulifying myself from the contest. I have already won two of the contests, here. I would feel bad if I actually won again(which I highly doubt) Let someone else feel the love!!!!

TFP Admin · February 20, 2008, 07:55 AM

A member wouldn't be disqualified from a contest because they won a give-away, which is where the "fun prizes" usually are. The 6 month rule, which is not a very long time in contest terms, would prevent someone from winning a good prize twice in a row. Some people are very good at contests, like Floorguy, but we can't always be sure that they would take themselves out of the running voluntarily.

If a member wants to cherry-pick the contests they think have the most valuable prizes, then that's up to them. We have had some very nice prizes already. I hope that all our prizes are nice, but that would be up to the potential contestant. But I am hoping the rules will not bar anyone, former winner or not, from participating in the contests. The 6 month rule would only bar them from winning a prize if they have won one in the last 6 months (and give-aways would not fall in that category).

It may also be appropriate to allow a member to participate in a contest, but to disqualify themselves from any prizes. That would be worked out too. The main goal is to have members participate, even if it's just for fun.

I'll work on the wording, but I can't help but feel that most will see the 6 month rule as fair, a few others may not. Disappointments may arise because we don't announce a schedule of contests and their prizes, so the winner last month of a drill might be disappointed they don't qualify for the 3 day, all expenses paid trip to Vegas next month.

Jon Scanlan · February 20, 2008, 08:52 PM

kwfloors said

I was waiting for the next contest to start being as I started about the end of the last one. For someone to play I think members should have a location shared, just my thoughts as I know this has been discussed here before. It doesn't have to be pinpoint on but a state would be a plus.

I would like to suggest that "State" being another country. Mainly New Zealand

PS To make it a bit fairer also to make it the first one on that day to reply. We are ahead one day CP so I should beat you again

Floorguy · February 20, 2008, 09:11 PM

Floorguy said

I'm disquaulifying myself from the contest. I have already won two of the contests, here. I would feel bad if I actually won again(which I highly doubt) Let someone else feel the love!!!!

Ok, now that the Z-06 Vette is up for the contest, I retract my last post!!!!

Barry Carlton · April 5, 2008, 07:14 PM

Am I missing the contests?
Or are they future?

TFP Admin · April 5, 2008, 09:13 PM

We have 2 contests coming soon. The first one will be for Tuscan Leveling Systems - 2 big prizes. The next will be for a UniFix laminate repair tool. I have 2 of them to give away, one as a contest prize and the other I am going to award to someone who can write a review of it. I am still working out the details to be able to give that too one of our members to write about.

Yes, we are long over due for another contest. Sorry.

T

kwfloors · April 5, 2008, 11:02 PM

Jon Scanlan said

I would like to suggest that "State" being another country. Mainly New Zealand
PS To make it a bit fairer also to make it the first one on that day to reply. We are ahead one day CP so I should beat you again

New Zealand is not that big and we all know where you are,,, south.

Jerry Thomas · April 6, 2008, 02:48 AM

My vote is to do away with rule #2. I fully understand the reasoning behind it, but in my mind, the benefits of not having that will far out shadow that reason. We , as a community, should not discriminate or punish those fortunate enough or enterprising enough to be a previous prize winner.

That's just my viewpoint on it Jim

Jon Scanlan · April 6, 2008, 03:12 AM

Jerry said

My vote is to do away with rule #2. I fully understand the reasoning behind it, but in my mind, the benefits of not having that will far out shadow that reason. We , as a community, should not discriminate or punish those fortunate enough or enterprising enough to be a previous prize winner.

That's just my viewpoint on it Jim

I go along with Jerry and Daris also has some very good points