Comments on: Numbers – The ever-shifting realities of crowdsourcing and design contest sites.

By: Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:55:05 +0000

@Said – Thanks for dropping by, Sure, the post upstairs is a ‘snapshot in time’ (January 12th to be exact) but if we were to perform the same exercise today, we’d see the trends still hold true. And when the number of participants is used as both a selling point, and as a barometer of the traction that ‘crowdsourcing’ has achieved, then surely those numbers are important enough to take a cursory look at?

In terms of other websites “overstating their member numbers” that’s neither here nor there. Unless we were writing a blog post about their particular niche, then I suppose they might be of interest.

As for there being “other more important questions to investigate related to the economics and quality of crowdsourced design”, I’ve always been queasy about discussing the ‘quality’ of ‘crowdsourced design’ – good design vs. bad design – due to the subjective nature of the topic. Generally speaking, and while I do have my opinion, beauty remains in the eye of the beholder, and I’m not much for bagging on young, often experienced designers, nor criticizing their work specifically. On the other hand, I’ve never been shy about pointing out the sometimes startling lack of originality of work entered, especially when it comes to logo design, and you can find many posts that do tackle the issue from that angle. I think the two examples posted yesterday (here and here) illustrate that point of view quite clearly.

I’ve always felt that this ties directly into the economics of crowdsourcing too. With only a slight chance of being remunerated for their efforts, many participants reduce those efforts as much as possible, even to the point of re-purposing other designers’ work. Having dealt with this issue for years now, and long before design contests were repackaged as ‘crowdsourcing’, I’ve seen little to refute this POV.

Other than that, what other ‘important questions’ did you have in mind?

By: Said Hamideh

Said Hamideh — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:55:38 +0000

This article is one big snapshot in time. It says nothing about trends or the trajectory of crowdsourcing.

Also, a lot of number crunching to prove that websites are overstating their member numbers. So what? Aren’t there other more important questions to investigate related to the economics and quality of crowdsourced design?

By: Anna

Anna — Wed, 19 May 2010 01:05:40 +0000

Here is another problem with Logo Tournament. Even if you win a contest you may have lots of trouble getting paid because all they take is Pay Pal.

You can loose almost all of your winnings if you live outside the U.S. paying fees and exchanges. We have begged for changes and other methods like moneybookers, but Tyler never does anything about it.

By: RevMex

RevMex — Fri, 14 May 2010 18:39:38 +0000

The problems that Logo Tournament has include the following:
1. Contests that go many months without designers getting paid.
2. Volunteer moderators who enjoy their jobs so much that they look for reasons to kill off other designers instead of paid staff who don’t have motiviation to axe others so they can move up.
3. Nasty nasty nasty community of designers who are out to kill each other and endless whining and infighting in forums.
4. Unresponsive support for designers esp. on weekends.

By: Peter van Grinsven

Peter van Grinsven — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:01:08 +0000

That was exactly my point. Nothing new under the sun.

By: Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:36:53 +0000

Using what Fortune 500 companies are doing as a barometer of ethics, fair play and equitable pay? Not sure that’s a road I would go down. What’s the big deal? None really Just carping on my blog.

By: Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:28:43 +0000

“Typically 20 % are responsible for 80 % of the activity”

Ahm, yeah. That’s kinda the point of the entire article.

“It is just marketing talk.”

That’s kinda the point too.

By: Peter van Grinsven

Peter van Grinsven — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:07:24 +0000

Where does it say ‘active users’? How active do you have to be to be considered a ‘user’. Every site has ‘super users’. Typically 20 % are responsible for 80 % of the activity. It is just marketing talk. Nothing particularly specific to crowdsourcing websites. Live and let live.

By: Cindy Morris

Cindy Morris — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:02:54 +0000

If crowdsourcing designs is so bad then why are Fortune 500 companies doing it? Many Fortune 500 companies have had logos designed by crowdsourcing websites. What’s the big deal?

By: « travail spéculatif » sur ŒIL POUR ŒIL

« travail spéculatif » sur ŒIL POUR ŒIL — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:37:01 +0000

[...] vraiment une base de plus de 50 000 designers sur ces sites? Pas si sûr, comme le démontre Steve Douglas. Ces affirmations semblent plutôt verser dans la fausse représentation. Et ce n’est pas [...]