Free TON

DePR Stage #2 Problems overview & Conclusions

Russian

Введение

По многочисленным просьбам членов сообщества Free TON, состав initial members и жюри субуправления Community Voice подготовил разбор конкурса DePR Stage #2 запущенного 27 мая 2021 года. И так ближе к проблеме…

Суть проблемы

На момент голосования, судьи не смогли прийти к консенсусу как верно оценить работы исходя из заданных условий конкурса, а именно:

  • Оригинальные условия не были соблюдены;
  • Не было возможности проверить размещение платных публикаций;
  • «Общение с редакцией» не являлось частью правил конкурса;
  • Не было консенсуса, должны ли быть включены перепечатки изданий и что считать перепечаткой.
  • Не было единого мнения касательно блогов;
  • Не было решения по оценке количества статей от участника и ранга Алексы;
  • Судьи не обратили внимание на замечания участников и других представителей сообщества.
  • Судьям было предложено два варианта голосования, что ввело в заблуждение судей.
  • Как измерить вклад статьи, как измерить метрики (количество прочтений, количество репостов и т.д) -value.

Несколько вариантов решения проблемы:

Вариант №1

Создание аудит группы для анализа статей, было предложено @ducktalesblock

Вариант №2

Оставить все как есть и запустить следующие конкурсы с DePR с более четкими прописанными условиями и soft criteria.

Вариант №3

Закончить конкурсы серии DePR и переосмыслить направление децентрализованного пиара.

Выводы

  • Последующие конкурсы должны прописывать soft criteria как для участников, так и для судей;
  • Судьи должны прийти к консенсусу до начала голосования;
  • Необходим аудит всех работ на плагиат и подтверждение работ участников;

+Текущие проблемы системы голосования (которые и так известны).

Заключение

Несмотря на организацию и работу жюри, сообщество получило бесценный опыт и вынесло из этого урок. Текущие проблемы могут быть решены только с запуском Governance 2.0 и консенсусом.

Просим вас принять участие в решении дальнейшей судьбы данного конкурса, голосование доступно постом ниже.

English

Intro

According to the numerous requests of the Free TON community members, the Initial Members and the Community Voice Community Jury prepared a contest overview of the DePR Stage #2 contest launched on May 27, 2021. Let’s move closer to the problems that we met there…

The essence of the problem

At the time of voting, the judges could not come to consensus how to evaluate participant submissions on the basis of the specified contest conditions:

  • The original contest conditions were not followed;
  • There was no possibility to check the placement of paid publications;
  • “Communication with the mass media editors” was not a part of the Competition Rules;
  • There was no consensus with reposts of publications that should be included as articles.
  • There was a common opinion regarding blogs;
  • There was no solution to assess the number of articles from the participant and Alexa rank;
  • The judges did not pay attention to the comments from participants and other community members.
  • The judges were proposed two voting options, which misled them.
  • How to measure the contribution of the article, how to measure metrics (number of readings, the number of reposts, etc.) -value.

Few solutions:

#1 option

Creating an audit of the group for analyzing articles, solution was proposed by @ducktalesblock

#2 option

Leave everything as it is and launch the following contests DePR with clearer conclusions and Soft Criteria.

#3 option

Finish all DePR contests and rethink the direction of the decentralized PR.

Conclusions

  • Subsequent contests must prescribe Soft Criteria for both participants and judges;
  • The judges and initial members must come to consensus before the voting start;
  • We need an audit of all work on plagiarism and confirmation of the work of participants and jury work;
  • Current voting problems (which are already known).

Few final sentences

Despite the organization and work of the jury, the community received invaluable experience and issued a lesson from this. Current issues can be solved only with the launch of Governance 2.0 and the consensus among participants and the jury.

We ask you to take part in solving the further fate of this contest, the voting is available to the post below.

5 Likes
  • Option #1
  • Option #2
  • Option #3

0 voters

Reserved for @ducktalesblock

I’ll wear my heart on my sleeve and say I’m all for option 3. I’ve drafted this which would appreciate some help in improving. I genuinely think it’s the way forward. Teamwork makes the dream work and all that, right?

If no one trashes the idea or has any suggestions by close of DePR2 I’ll push: Decentralised PR Team Contest Proposal (DePR Stage 3) - Google Docs

1 Like

Leaving everything as it is is the best option.
We can sign a proposal to account for both valuation systems.
We need to move on.

1 Like

first to say about any ads campaigns is make a good brief - what community want to get from PR campaign. the following criteria should be met as targeted audience, thematic sites, Free TON message of PR campaign(consider as strategy).
second to say is every campaign should be measurable. Another words every participant has to proof value of its placements so provide a POST-campaign reports. At least number of views of its placements. The best to see views of the articles, unique users and reading time if such provided by sites.

And finally good to see next stage of community decentralization such working as decentralized group. Where persons or teams show synergy results work in competitive manner. By the way look at the relative contest in A&S SG.

3 Likes

I can tell that it’s better not only to create an audit group (propose myself to participate in this group as I already did my research of every article of this contest), but also seriously think about criteria.
For instance, I have serious doubt about the utility of the Alexa rating. See for yourself - just several sites that has articles of this contest:

Another very important note. Different unique articles imho bring more value than one multiplied article. You can say that in different sites it will be seen by different audience. Yes, but if someone will google freeton or something related to these articles, the person will see dozens of identical articles. This is definitely not good.

По-русски, вкратце. Ваша Алекса хрень, если бездумно на неё опираться. А уникальные статьи лучше одинаковых размноженных, размноженные в гугле будут ужасно выглядеть.

3 Likes

I like the idea of post-campaign reports!

1 Like

We do not conduct voting on the forum :bangbang: :frowning_face:

мое мнение : не нужен DePr 3 . Как конкурсант второго могу сказать следующее : голосуют многие не соблюдая правила, в процессе голосования меняют правила на ценность публикации - предоставляешь сразу ценность с доказательствами - говорят что это не прописано в условиях. Очень сомнительный конкурс для комьюнити. Больше информации вы сможете прочитать в группе сабгова. Пока жюри не будут следовать правилам - хоть меняй их хоть не меняй - толка не будет.
Мое предложение: сделайти ответсятвенность и для жюри: голосуешь не по правилам - нечего тебе голосовать вовсе! Либо для голосования внеси свои токены в размере реварда за голосования, проголосовал не по правилам - сгорят твои токены и не получишь токены за голосование. 2 предупреждения в таком голосовании - исключение с состава жюри!!! Пока нет ответственности - будет бардак и не разберихи.

my opinion: no need for DePr 3. As a competitor of the second, I can say the following: many vote without observing the rules, during the voting process they change the rules for the value of the publication - you immediately provide value with evidence - they say that this is not spelled out in the conditions. A very dubious competition for the community. You can read more information in the subgov group. As long as the jury does not follow the rules - at least change them at least do not change - there will be no sense.
My suggestion: make a mistake for the jury too: if you vote against the rules, you have nothing to vote at all! Or, to vote, enter your tokens in the amount of a reward for voting, voted not according to the rules - your tokens will burn and you will not receive tokens for voting. 2 warnings in such a vote - exclusion from the jury !!! Until there is responsibility, there will be chaos

2 Likes

Отличная пиар компания с Хакернуном - и привлечение разработчиков и тех кто полезен комьюнити. А постить статьи на сомнительных сайтах с просмотрами 2 или 3 на статью (образно) это ооочень сомнительно. Но опять же - это мое мнение )))

An excellent PR company with Hackernoon - and attracting developers and those who are useful to the community. And posting articles on dubious sites with views of 2 or 3 per article (figuratively) is sooo doubtful. But again - this is my opinion)))

1 Like

Valuable lessons learned in DePr-2. Time to include conclusions in the next contests language to avoid similar problems in the future.

1 Like

I agree to add such contest reports as best practices (I thought about it long time ago)

1 Like

Вы пишите, что

Исходя из этого, правильно будет приостановить конкурс.

Но важно проанализировать: какой выхлоп принёс конкурс на данный момент.
И если мы получили хорошие результаты, то правильным будет продолжить конкурс с пересмотром условий и критериев.

Касательно варианта №1. Разве судьи не должны выступать в роли подобной группы аудита?


You write that

Based on this, it would be correct to suspend the contest.

But it is important to analyze: what value the competition has brought at the moment.
And if we got good results, then it would be right to continue with the revision of the conditions and criteria.

Regarding option number 1. Shouldn’t judges act as such an audit team?

2 Likes

Могу сказать одно, ценность точно не нудевая, поскольку статьи будут работать не месяц - а несколько лет. Их никто не удалит и они останутся в выдаче. даже те, где мало просмотров будут влиять на положительную массовую выдачу на всех языках. До конкурса широким массам было вообще ничего не известно о Free TON либо путали проект со скамом

I can say one thing, the value is definitely not zero, since the articles will work not for a month, but for several years. Nobody will delete them and they will remain in the search results. even those with few views will have a positive SERP in all languages. Before the competition, the broad masses did not know anything about Free TON at all, or they confused the project with a scam

2 Likes

также не соблюдаются сроки проведения конкурса, не в первый раз, ни во второй, второй конкурс, насколько я вижу, должен был закончиться 21 мая и судиться до 28 мая. Сегодня 09.06 - и с места ничего не сдвинулось. Даже если конкурс был направлен на создание отношений с журналистами и редакциями, то договариваться с ними, когда все меняется нереально.

Also, the timing of the competition is not respected, not for the first time, nor for the second, the second competition, as far as I can see, was supposed to end on May 21 and litigate until May 28. Today is 09.06 - and nothing has moved. Even if the competition was aimed at creating relations with journalists and editorial offices, it is unrealistic to negotiate with them when everything changes.

You won’t be able to get these stats in 99% cases.

And if you do, that will 99% mean that the publication was paid - as part of the commercial agreement. There is nothing bad in that but it is not PR but media buying.

Its not true.
We’ve got stats mostly from all sites we placed articles. And we didn’t negotiate about it before placements.

I’m sure thats stats will be avaliable for most sites.
Such stats will show value of the placement and also allow to use succeccfull sites several times.
I find that some dePR participants tried to carry out PR strategy for thier campaing so good stats help them much.

1 Like

I will check with my contacts - how it all works for both paid placements and free ones.

Assuming that we have some stats, what should we do with:

  • sites that don’t provide such data? For any reason (technical or whatever)
  • synthetic (boosted) page views? It’s done very easy and GA won’t be able to track it

These issues can’t be solved, imho.

Let’s imagine that we somehow have a true table with Alexa and page views. Should the articles in different languages be counted equally? Or articles in English have more weight if compared to Russian? And what about such languages as Vietnamese or Indonesian? These countries have a very high crypto-adoption (CA) index. Same goes with Turkish and Spanish. While Spanish-speaking countries have different CA indexes too.

Such a model will have flows and possible hacks that one can’t see from the start. As I see it.

Furthermore what should be done to have useful calculations. Sum up alexas, page views and divide them somehow?

I would be happy to be proven wrong on any of the concepts but it’s how I see things.

And a brain-crusher. What’s more useful from the point of value:

  • 1 article on a sites with 1M monthly unique visitors
  • 10 articles on a site with 100K monthly unique visitors

From one hand, 10 articles on one site make the audience more informed and most likely attract more people to study the project. From another hand, having an editorial text on a well-known and respected site is more an image thing (but also very useful).

Аналитику по конкурсам должен делать сабгав Аналитики. После аналитического отчета карать безответственных жюри( награды жюри выплачиваются только после отчета аналитики).