Comments on: Coversourcing: Update

By: Peter Collingridge

Peter Collingridge — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:35:27 +0000

Hi Brady - there is an update here:
http://aptstudio.com/timesemit/2008/02/06/coversourcing-legal-update-from-random-house/

Cheers

By: Thom

Thom — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:25:35 +0000

As much as I appreciated the response, and accept that its purpose is to narrow a top-20, it didn’t address the basic issue - that the voting system is flawed. But I guess that would only matter if you were trying to have some sort of competition here.

By: Brady

Brady — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:23:09 +0000

Any update on the location/geographic restrictions? I would hope that this would be resolved before top twenty entries are selected and locked in.

Many thanks!

By: Vincenzo

Vincenzo — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:36:29 +0000

The rules says “resident of UK or Ireland.” I’m a British citizen living in the US, with no permanent UK residence. Does that wash?

By: Antonio

Antonio — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:02:02 +0000

I really hope they allow people from outside the US to enter. I already submitted a design, which is in the top 20, but then found out later that you have to be in the UK or Ireland which is really lame. I’m keeping it up there in hopes that the rules change.

By: Peter Collingridge

Peter Collingridge — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:36:00 +0000

Hi Thom

Thanks for your comment about the voting. It’s not perfect - but it does the job we need it to. If Flickr had some kind of rating metric - it would have been easier for us, but there were some good open source tools out there, to which we were committed to using for this project.

I draw your attention to the fact that (1) the voting is to get a top 20 for the panel and (2) that we have a voting period after submissions close - two weeks - during which time the playing field should be leveled.

One thing about AceJet’s entry is that he firstly got it in early, and then followed up by mobilising his mates, blog-readers and early visitors to vote for him. That in itself is, I guess, a part of what any crowdsourced operation, from Threadless to Cambrian House, accepts is part of the model itself. But as you rightly suggest it works both ways for him.

Still, it’s all rather interesting. Thanks again

Peter

By: Thom

Thom — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:38:40 +0000

The voting system is rather obviously flawed (if this has been addressed elsewhere I apologize). Because it is based on an average score someone like acejet can have more 4 and 5 scores than anyone else but still be ranked third, because of the number of lower scores he receives. As such, he can have over 300 more votes than other entries and still not be the top entry. In fact, because he has so many more votes it is harder for him to increase his score, since each 4 or 5 vote does not effect his average as much as the entries with less votes.

I know this is basic math and perhaps this is not how the votes will eventually be interpreted. But looking at it now it seems acejet is being penalized for having more people vote for him.

By: Peter Collingridge

Peter Collingridge — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:30:40 +0000

Hi Brady, Yahoowonder, Pagalina (and all entrants)

We know the location restrictions *suck*. We fought very hard, repeatedly, to try to get them lifted, using all your arguments (and many others).

The lawyers at Random House explained the situation to us - and it sounded all kind of understandable, legally - but it still sucked.

I’ve asked them to come back and (1) explain why this is to you all and (2) to again reconsider their position. And this is going to happen next week - so don’t lose heart.

We really hope that there is a way around this - which is one of the reasons why the first page of the site isn’t BIG LETTERS saying “Do Not Enter unless….” but we can’t make any promises. We do feel that we made it pretty clear that you need to understand the terms and conditions ( http://www.coversourcing.co.uk/rules ) but hear you on this.

Stay in touch - we’ll put out an update next week.

Cheers

apt

By: Brady

Brady — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:57:44 +0000

Yes, I feel that that the location restrictions should have been made very clear (IN BIG BOLD LETTERING) from the beginning. Why not make this item # 1 on “The Rules” page, not tucked away somewhere in the Terms and Conditions. The nature of the crowd is that it is heterogeneous – especially so on the internet. Why limit the pool of contestants, and why limit them to one geographic area? You should have at least forced contestants to register, using a mailing address, so that you could have alerted contestants that they were ineligible. Perhaps a way around the legal complications would be to stipulate that prize money would not be paid out to contestants outside of the UK and Ireland.

By: yahoowonder

yahoowonder — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:23:19 +0000

Yikes! I’m not from the UK. I guess that would mean I’m out of the running :( Didn’t read that part I suppose. Hope you reconsider…