(Read to the bottom to catch the new “side bet” with prize money available to more contestants. I need your help to figure out how to award it.)
Wow. If you haven’t left a comment on one of the One Post Challenge entries, one of the last two entries (here and here) will definitely give you something to write about!
We now have 22 published entries and I’ll have to publish two or three posts a day to get everything out by the November 30 deadline. I’m still accepting new entries, so get those fingers flying on your keyboard and send me something juicy!
The One Post Challenge momentum has continued to build with entries from high profile contestants, lots of comments and another mention in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Today I have more cash to add to the prize pool.
First, Jeff Tuller, president and chairman of socialmarkets and author of the One Post Challenge entry, “Sleeping With The Enemy” is adding $250 to the winning prize. Jeff’s gift is in addition to my $250 and the $250 offered by Network for Good. The $750 prize goes to the post with the most comments from unique individuals (ie. The number of people posting comments, not the number of comments). The prize will be awarded as a Good Card, the new gift card from Network for Good that lets the receiver donate to the nonprofit of their choice.
Now not everyone has been happy with the way this contest is being judged. Early on, regular reader Bruce Trachtenberg wrote in a comment:
Maybe “volume” is overrated–and you need to find some way of assessing the quality and long-term value of guest posts. If your goal is simply to generate a lot of comments, you can always invite people to say or write something outrageous. But there also has to be a place for thoughtful, illuminating commentary that people respond to in other ways–like acting on what they’re hearing rather than tossing off a knee-jerk response.
More debate on this issue occurred in this post and comment thread.
I agree that the metric I chose for the contest is not perfect. I chose it because it is objective and transparent (anyone can verify the results and all contestants know exactly what they’re shooting for). How else could the contest have been judged? Well, now we have a chance to find out. Another $250 in prize money is being offered by TisBest. TisBest was founded this year and is offering their own charity gift card (read here for details). So here’s the deal. How do you think this $250 in gift cards from TisBest should be awarded? I’ll read the comments to this post and try and “read” the overall response and go with what the community wants. The only limitation is that the $250 cannot be spread out over more than 25 cards. Otherwise, anything is game.
My suggestion: use whatever criteria you want but DON’T PUBLISH THEM.
Your original criteria were cool, and would have worked if you had kept them secret until after the contest.
I can only think of one “quality of discussion” metric you can publish without causing people to game it. That’s “ranking according to Sean’s subjective whimsy” (which I also think would be a perfectly reasonable way to do it).
I would lean more towards “ranking according to what the readers want”. So after the contest ends I post a question about the best posts and people can vote for the best post. The question just becomes do we give the full $250 to one post or split it up among three or x number of posts?
What does everyone think?
Sean, I’d vote for the post that took your breath away. That’s partly what this is all about, non? Stirring things up. Give that blogger a chance to do it again — this time with some dollars doing good. Best, Julia
Sean should receive the prize for stimulating one of the most interesting discussions in the philanthopic buzzosphere.
Get gamed, note it, draw the moral. So we learn. Try something else next time.