In 2019, the agency I manage has applied for participation in the "PP" competition in 3 nominations. In some nominations we went to the first stage, and in one to the final, but the result is the same everywhere - we were defeated. And I would accept defeat with dignity if the refereeing, in my humble opinion, was fair. Over the years of our agency's existence, we have had the opportunity to participate in many competitions and win.
Therefore, what we had to face was a surprise to us. Of course, it's up to you to decide what to think about the competition and how fair the organization was. So let's get started.
Information about the competition
is an all-Russian competition of websites and mobile applications, held since 2010. At the time of our participation, the organizers created 27 nominations for sites and 9 nominations for applications, in which participants submitted their projects (1 participant could submit applications in several nominations). The deadline for accepting applications was set from February 28 to May 24, 2019. To participate, it was necessary to fill out a small form (all fields except the promotional code are required) and pay for participation.
Stages of the
- Promotion of works (projects). Selection of nominations, uploading an icon and a link to the project, subsequent publication in the general list of works admitted to participate in the competition.
- People's vote. Upon completion of the acceptance of applications, a popular vote begins, in which anyone can evaluate the project from 1 to 5. Those projects that received more than 3 points go to the next stage.
- . , 2 – 3 , 10 — .
- . — , (1-, 2- 3-) «» .
In my opinion, questions arise already at the current stage. For example, what are the relevant criteria for evaluating a project? How is the GPA calculated? How are the top three formed? Who is included in the expert commission for each nomination?
Realizing that there are certain questions, we decided to closely monitor the progress of the competition and make full-size screenshots of the pages in the nominations we are interested in every 30 minutes.
However, even before the start of the audience voting, the first violations appeared.
Appearance of other projects after the deadline for applications
We applied for the competition 2 projects in 3 categories:
- Information technology (site);
- The best agency website (site);
- Brand app (app).
The deadline for accepting applications is 23:59, May 24, 2019.
We approached the choice of categories quite carefully - we chose the categories where there is least competition (since there are related categories) and not very strong works were presented.
We designed projects and started following these three categories and here's what surprised us:
- On May 26, there were 24 sites in the Information Technology category. On May 29, there were 34 sites, that is, 10 more.
- On May 26, there were 24 sites in the "Best Agency Site" category. On May 29, there were 39 sites, that is, 15 more.
- On May 26, there were 4 apps in the Brand App category. And on June 5, there are already 17 applications, that is, 13 more.
Left - the category "Information technology" from May 26, right - from May 29.
After what we saw, we turned to the organizers with a request to comment on the change in the number of nominees after the deadline for accepting applications.
The organizers' answer surprised me:
These participants applied before the deadline for accepting applications, but paid after. This is not prohibited by the rules.
In the form presented on the competition website, you cannot submit an application without paying for participation . Moreover, you cannot submit an application without choosing a nomination and posting a link to the project itself. Accordingly, it is not clear how the participants applied.
Increase in the rating of the nominees of the popular vote
According to the rules of the competition, participants who scored less than 3 points from ordinary users did not go to the next stage. The popular vote was completed on June 15, 2019. Half an hour before its end (exactly the same as 10 days before), 5-6 projects (voting leaders) had ratings of 3 or more, the rest of the participants had less than 3.
Having entered the site at 23:02, we found that that absolutely all the nominees who did not pass to the next stage had a sharp rise in their rating and their grades started from 3 points. And this happened in all nominations, without exception.
On the left - before "cleaning", on the right - after.
We have again asked the organizers to clarify the increase in ratings that occurred:
Anatoly, good afternoon again! Unfortunately, at the end of the popular vote, vote cheats were noticed, especially in the evening. We will check and clean them before the start of the expert voting, i.e. today and tomorrow.
Therefore, if absolutely all participants in all categories have a rating of more than 3 points, we can assume that the stage of the popular vote does not matter at all , since each participant will pass it, and if you do not have enough points, they will be "stopped" for you.
Moreover, as it turned out later, it was the participants who miraculously appeared after the deadline for accepting applications and who had a rating of less than 3 points were the winners.
Expert jury
Being among the participants, on my part it will be subjective and wrong to judge the jury's expertise. Therefore, I'll just share the facts: among the finalists there were sites with a rather mediocre design, elements of which were downloaded from various stocks, and almost any designer will notice the plagiarism with the naked eye.
Moreover, one of the finalists is entirely built on a ready-made template that can be bought for $ 59 on the well-known foreign marketplace.
Jury affiliation
The next point that surprised and misunderstood us was the presence in the jury of the heads of the agencies that developed the sites of the participants. As we have already mentioned, the site rules state that jury members cannot vote for projects in which they are involved.
You can find the list of jury members on the competition website. Among them is, for example, the general director of agency X. Surprisingly, agency X is the developer of site Y, one of the winners in the Information Technology category. Also on the jury was the art director of the E agency, which developed the site that won first place.
Conclusion
Summing up, there is a feeling that in order to win you need to know some specific information that is not written in the open spaces of the Russian Internet and be a member of the jury of the competition. Moreover, as if by magic , it was precisely those who appeared in the listing after the completion of accepting applications and scored less than 3 points in the popular vote that won .
And the jury's expert opinion is so subjective that it is not based on generally accepted evaluation criteria, but determines the finalists by tossing a coin. How else to explain the presence of template projects among the finalists?
There may be a problem in the projects submitted for the competition, and not in the competition itself, the reader can rightly notice. But unfortunately or fortunately, both in other Russian and foreign competitions, our projects (which were submitted to the RR) have collected more than 10 awards.
So, having spent 17 395 rubles for participation in the competition, we received a piece of paper, testifying only that we made it to the final. Stormy and prolonged applause ...
Consolation "prize".
For ourselves, we found out that the "PP" competition, alas, has ceased to be transparent and fair for its participants. Guided by the identified "violations" and the ambiguous results of the competition, it is believed that the prize cannot serve as a standard for assessing the quality of digital products.
Of course it is up to you to decide what to think about the competition and how fair the organization was. I am very interested in the objective opinion of the reader. Therefore, I will be extremely grateful for your feedback in the comments. Also, you are kindly requested, before drawing conclusions how objective or subjective my assessment is, read the evidence provided in the article for a complete understanding of the whole picture.
PS Please do not judge strictly, this is the first article on Habré. If you have any remarks or comments, I will be glad to answer.