I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but the suggestion on best practices is fundamentally flawed. The current method of voting is a joke. I've seen great works not able to compete due to FB Likes. The rules say that buying likes is illegal, yet getting your friends to vote for you on FB is ok. So in reality this competition does not judge a submission by it's true worth, but how many "mates" you have on FB. I watched the most recent competition, which produced one outstanding display of effort and use of Chief. This entrant was blown away at the last minute by a spam of FB likes from another entrant. How is that fair?
I sent a line of suggestions in a number of years ago, yet nothing has changed in the competition. (if I've missed something please direct me to it).
i thought the whole idea was to help promote Chief to the general market and also showcase the entrant's capabilities. The current system for the competition promotes a "why bother" line of thinking and does not encourage entrants to strive for better results in the work they produce.
The competition needs a set of guidelines in the judging of entries. If you wish to remain using FB likes then make it a "people's choice" award but add another layer with a separate set of judging criteria. (If required, I'll dig out my previous suggestion email). I'd love to see more people enter the competition, but not with the current method of voting.
I'm just sayin......
This subscription model is a disaster for those new users outside the US. Here in AU/NZ it will be $300 pm . In the current economic environment, I struggle to keep up with the NZ$85 pm with SSA, but I'm glad I have it now. Usually changing the fee structure of a product is meant to come with a net benefit, I fail to see what that benefit is, in this instance. Are there plans to jack up the price of SSA, so it becomes untenable as a method to stay current.
