Project One Clarification

by Gkam84   February 14, 2014  

Right, I am starting this, because to my utter disappointment, I have been reading about people "manipulating" the voting.

I tried this out...It worked. So some of the bikes are receiving multiple votes from the same people, over and over.

My question is

Do you have to be logged in for a vote to be cast? (I seemed to be able to vote without being logged in, twice)
Can you vote more than once on the same bike? (I also managed to do this)
Can you vote daily on the same bike? (I haven't been able to confirm this)

From what I am reading, there are a number of people, voting over and over on the same bike and artificially bumping the votes up, are these getting counted?

100 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

This is all quite intriguing, better than an average week of Corrie!

I did design and enter one bike but, as per a couple of comments above, I'm glad I didn't get through if this is what the competition was actually about.

On a possibly related note, I've noticed that various forum threads seem to have an unusually high number of likes against individual posts too, this being an example:

http://road.cc/content/forum/110280-should-cyclists-ride-pavements

Can't imagine that's as a result of genuine new traffic to the site from this competition...

posted by parksey [168 posts]
18th February 2014 - 15:22

like this
Like (99)

neildmoss wrote:
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:
And while this disaster unfolds, still not a public word to explain the inexplicable from the road.cc team ....

CompetitionRules wrote:
No correspondence will be entered into.

True to their word.

Not entirely true to their word, some competitors are deemed worthy of a reply to their concerns about the operation of this 'competition', concerns I raised on the 12th February and have yet to receive a reply .....

trektweet.png

Never in a hurry on a bicycle.

posted by GoingRoundInCycles [134 posts]
18th February 2014 - 15:27

like this
Like (66)

Ok, this is just getting silly now. Accusations are flying around, vote rigging, talk of disqualification (that hasn't materialised), possible favouritsm, no clarity on what constitutes cheating and what doesn't, votes for some mysteriously disappearing without written explanation whilst others are not affected, and now the voting page has been relegated to the depths of the news section where no casual visitor who might actually be tempted to place an unbiased vote will ever find it.

The organisers need to make a coherent statement today giving a full explanation, before the competition closes in order to give reasonable time for all competitors to respond. I simply do not trust the number of votes being cast for some entries, including those currently leading after others were penalised. If the organisers can't or won't say anything on the matter then I'd like my entry to be removed from voting and an apology issued by Trek and road.cc to all those that have voted for wasting their valuable time.

Edit at 15:41 18/02: Just received a tweet from the organisers, they are working on a plan and will have a solution soon. Finally, this might get sorted out.

posted by gregww1 [32 posts]
18th February 2014 - 16:41

like this
Like (99)

Trek, I guess in conjunction with Road.cc are working on a solution and statement.

There should have only been a couple of winners to this. Road.cc with increased traffic, Trek with publicity and THEN, the eventual winner....So far it has proved that much and more, I think it is getting alot more attention that ever though of.

There is only going to be one winner of the bike in my opinion, no matter what happens, she's won it

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8645 posts]
18th February 2014 - 16:43

like this
Like (97)

Gkam84 wrote:
There is only going to be one winner of the bike in my opinion, no matter what happens, she's won it

I don't disagree.

posted by gregww1 [32 posts]
18th February 2014 - 16:46

like this
Like (96)

gregww1 wrote:
Gkam84 wrote:
There is only going to be one winner of the bike in my opinion, no matter what happens, she's won it

I don't disagree.


From all that has happened so far, there is no other conclusion in my opinion either!
I would prefer it if the 'competition' was void and each of the shortlisted entries was given the same equal prize instead, say a choice of goods or a gift voucher to the value of £128.00. (£3200/25 = £128.00 each).
Also when the competition was launched, I thought it a bit strange that there was not any runner-up prizes, you would expect something for the top three at least! Wink

posted by Darren C [69 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:00

like this
Like (96)

No the competition was for a bike and ONLY bike, for ONE winner, no runners up, no splitting of the prize pot

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8645 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:09

like this
Like (94)

Gkam84 wrote:
Trek, I guess in conjunction with Road.cc are working on a solution and statement.

There should have only been a couple of winners to this. Road.cc with increased traffic, Trek with publicity and THEN, the eventual winner....So far it has proved that much and more, I think it is getting alot more attention that ever though of.

There is only going to be one winner of the bike in my opinion, no matter what happens, she's won it

Of course she's won it. Trek / Road.cc have backed themselves into an impossible position where the only alternative to Juliet is a victory for a bullish, ugly, middle-aged mamil, with a face like a slapped arse in every promo pic. Rolling On The Floor

The only proven vote manipulation is by the organisers themselves when they deleted votes yesterday and today from every contestant except one. Poor Darren has had 6 votes removed for reasons unknown and yet the person with 1700+ votes ... not one of the votes was dodgy according to whatever rule of thumb nonsense rule they plucked out of thin air to decide with 100% accuracy whether IP address xx:yy:zz:00 is from a 'real' voter or not ... Rolling Eyes ... for every vote for every contestant in the compo, except one .... Rolling Eyes

Pardon my French but this has turned into a gigantic clusterfuck that will be written about in marketing circles for years to come. Rolling On The Floor

Never in a hurry on a bicycle.

posted by GoingRoundInCycles [134 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:14

like this
Like (63)

Gkam84 wrote:
No the competition was for a bike and ONLY bike, for ONE winner, no runners up, no splitting of the prize pot

Yes I accept that was the original intention and in an ideal world, where all the voting had taken place with everyone on a level playing field, it would work.
But with suspicions of a unfair result, all trust has since disappeared.

posted by Darren C [69 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:19

like this
Like (95)

I haven't unleashed my final assault yet, so don't be surprised when my votes suddenly spike from one an hour to three. Wink

And, I'll have you know I'm quite an attractive MAMIL, with my man-boobs and beard. They could do a piece on me and how this bike helps transform me into a lean, mean riding machine, lol.

posted by gregww1 [32 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:31

like this
Like (95)

Gkam84 wrote:
There should have only been a couple of winners to this. Road.cc with increased traffic, Trek with publicity and THEN, the eventual winner....So far it has proved that much and more, I think it is getting alot more attention that ever though of.

Exactly this!

I actually bought a Madone off the back of this comp - their job is being done from a marketing perspective, however positive or negative it is.

Merlin Cycles women's race team ~ http://www.merlincycles.com
Manx nerd peddler ~ http://mooleur.blogspot.com

mooleur's picture

posted by mooleur [534 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:32

like this
Like (95)

Darren C wrote:
Gkam84 wrote:
No the competition was for a bike and ONLY bike, for ONE winner, no runners up, no splitting of the prize pot

Yes I accept that was the original intention and in an ideal world, where all the voting had taken place with everyone on a level playing field, it would work.
But with suspicions of a unfair result, all trust has since disappeared.

If you wanted to make an issue of all 25 getting something, I would make an issue of the judging that picked the 25 in the first place....Why didn't mine get in? I want a prize....

It would just get silly

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8645 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:47

like this
Like (94)

Not being in the final 25, perhaps my views are meaningless. But it seems to me that whatever happens, one person will be getting a bike they didn't previously have, and haven't paid for; and 24 others are no worse off than they were.

Had entries required stumping up of cash, I'd feel differently. But as it is I can just see a whole lot of greed. Which isn't particularly becoming.

posted by andyp [783 posts]
18th February 2014 - 17:53

like this
Like (100)

andyp wrote:
...But as it is I can just see a whole lot of greed. Which isn't particularly becoming.

Almost, but not entirely. Some talked about donating the bike to charity and I've publicly stated elsewhere that if I won, the proceeds from the sale of my current bike (a 2013 Spzd Tarmac) would go to Kidney Research UK.

posted by gregww1 [32 posts]
18th February 2014 - 18:32

like this
Like (96)

That's more like it. Smile

posted by andyp [783 posts]
18th February 2014 - 18:47

like this
Like (93)

All right, let’s have a bit of calm. Trek is giving away a £3,400 road bike, and getting grief for it because of what some see as ‘cheating’ in an online competition. Bit whiny and sad, isn’t it?

Here’s the thing: we can see who’s voting and we can see a lot about how they’re voting. Pretty much everyone is trying to use the voting system to their advantage.

Some ways of doing that are acceptable. Getting your friends to vote for you, even getting them to do it regularly: that’s okay, this is an online competition after all. Getting your IT skills to vote for you, over and over again: that’s not okay.

Votes that we think fall in to the latter category will be deleted - we’ve already done that once and when voting closes we will look at the votes cast for every entrant and where necessary do it again.

As a reminder, here is part of the terms and conditions everyone agreed to when they entered this competition:

"By taking part in this competition you agree to be bound by the competition rules and by the decisions of Farrelly Atkinson which are final in all matters relating to the competition."

http://road.cc/content/news/99572-design-and-win-trek-project-one-bike-worth-£3200

Tony Farrelly's picture

posted by Tony Farrelly [4131 posts]
18th February 2014 - 18:48

like this
Like (101)

There...the boss man has spoken.

Trek said they are going to release something aswell.

So lets just leave it there....

I didn't expect this thread to get as far as it has, I just wanted to highlight the vote rigging that I had read about.

It has now been tackled somewhat...

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8645 posts]
18th February 2014 - 19:02

like this
Like (94)

My mother has zero IT skills and she could still vote over and over again for my design thanks to the useless voting mechanism.

Where do you draw the line?

How do you define "regularly" when referring to friends voting? How regular is too regular and will result in votes being deleted?

Why have some entrants been stripped of hundreds of votes (admittedly gained through repeat voting) whilst others (also blatantly using the same tactic) remain 1000 votes ahead?

Why couldn't a simple, robust voting mechanism be used in the first place which would have avoided so much confusion and frustration?!!

Too many questions for what should have been a fun, exciting and fair competition.

posted by si.brown [9 posts]
18th February 2014 - 19:02

like this
Like (96)

Quote:
"By taking part in this competition you agree to be bound by the competition rules ...... "

The problem being ... you didn't publish any!

Well, just one, " ..... but voting will only be possible through this page."

.... and by the decisions of Farrelly Atkinson which are final in all matters relating to the competition.

... except that you too are subject to the rule of law and are not Emperors who can make up the rules as you go along to get the outcome that you desire.

For example, one of your rules is that no correspondence will be entered into. So how is it right that it has taken until now for anyone at road.cc to correspond on this issue ... while Trek UK Twitter have been very actively communicating with contestants, to the point where one might surmise a vested interest, in one of them ...

trektweet.png

Never in a hurry on a bicycle.

posted by GoingRoundInCycles [134 posts]
18th February 2014 - 19:08

like this
Like (57)

No. That was it. We aren't releasing something in addition to Tony's comments.

Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TrekUK
And Twitter @trekbikesuk

TrekBikesUK's picture

posted by TrekBikesUK [90 posts]
18th February 2014 - 19:10

like this
Like (93)

I think Si Brown has pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

posted by tomisitt [32 posts]
18th February 2014 - 19:11

like this
Like (91)

si.brown wrote:
My mother has zero IT skills and she could still vote over and over again for my design thanks to the useless voting mechanism.

Where do you draw the line?

This +100000000

Quote:
How do you define "regularly" when referring to friends voting? How regular is too regular and will result in votes being deleted?

Why have some entrants been stripped of hundreds of votes (admittedly gained through repeat voting) whilst others (also blatantly using the same tactic) remain 1000 votes ahead?

It is still happening today. I have had votes removed today using the same exact method to vote for Juliet Elliott and other contestants who have had no votes removed. Si, my advice to you is if you can say hand on heart that every vote that you gained to the best of your knowledge was by someone going to the competition web page and physically clicking on the like button ... take legal advice about the mass deletion of your votes. You haven't broken any of the published rules governing the operation of this 'competition'.

Quote:
The British Code of Advertising, Sale Promotion and Direct Marketing (known as 'the CAP Code') sets out certain additional rules which should be followed when running prize promotions ....

In addition to the general principles that advertising must be legal, decent, honest and truthful, the CAP Code requires that the following information is given to consumers before or at the time of entry into the prize promotion:

....

.....

.....

  • any geographical, personal or technological restrictions (eg location, age, or the need to have access to the internet);

    ....

    ....

    ....

    ....

    http://www.out-law.com/page-6780

  • Any technological restrictions such as choice of browser, proxies etc should have been clearly stated before the vote was opened. You cannot run a public competition for a prize worth thousands and make it up as you go along.

    Did anyone at road.cc or Trek UK get legal advice before running this shambles? If so, get your money back.

    Quote:
    Why couldn't a simple, robust voting mechanism be used in the first place which would have avoided so much confusion and frustration?!!

    Too many questions for what should have been a fun, exciting and fair competition.

    All the right questions, IMO.

    Never in a hurry on a bicycle.

    posted by GoingRoundInCycles [134 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 19:29

    like this
    Like (59)

    'you cannot run a public competition for a prize worth thousands and make it up as you go along.'

    Why not?

    posted by andyp [783 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 19:44

    like this
    Like (88)

    As I said, there are rules governing how competitions are run, anyone who has had votes deleted should read this and then decide whether or not it is worth your while to take action:

    an extract from Committee of Advertising Practice website giving advice about how to run a competition, professionally:

    Quote:
    Promoters need to take care that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that the structure, or mechanic, of their promotion is not open to abuse. Allowing abuse is likely to cause consumers who have participated fairly to be disadvantaged.

    Sometimes participants might simply be seeking to improve their chances of success in legitimate ways but on other occasions, they might be deliberately abusing the promotion by acting in a way that is not expressly prohibited by the T&Cs. A promoter’s understanding of ‘abuse’ may be different to that of the ASA (or participants’) and care needs to be taken to communicate restrictions of entry clearly.

    Promoters must state clearly how participants should behave and should be wary of disqualifying those who have followed the letter of the conditions but whose actions seem unfair in retrospect.

    For example, in 2012, the ASA ruled that a promoter should not have withdrawn the promise of prizes after deciding the ‘winner’ had acted improperly. Ts&Cs stated a limit of one entry, per e-mail address, per hourly prize draw but did not expressly prohibit multiple entries from a single IP address. Because the complainant had used the same IP address but a different e-mail address for each entry, the ASA ruled that the promoter caused unnecessary disappointment when it withdrew the prizes after notifying the complainant that they had won (PepsiCo International Ltd, 21 November 2012).

    Wow ... and PepsiCo actually took the trouble to publish some rules in advance, unlike ....

    Quote:
    Creating and enforcing T&Cs retrospectively is unacceptable - even if the aim is to combat abuse (Meeeeet.com t/a Piingwin.com ApS, 3 October 2012). In 2012, a promoter disqualified a participant because it considered she had unfairly canvassed votes. The ASA considered that canvassing for votes was commonplace on social media sites and upheld the complaint because the T&Cs did not state that such behaviour was prohibited and would lead to disqualification (The Number UK Ltd, 4 April 2012).

    A promoter running a competition to win a wedding who encouraged the finalists to “Tell your friends, tell your relatives, tell everyone you can! The more votes you get, the better your chance of winning.” and then retrospectively introduced restrictions to the voting tactics that finalists could use was held to have administered the promotion unfairly (The Halifax Courier Ltd, 18 September 2013).

    ... sounds familiar? ....

    http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Databas...

    So when do the contestants who have had votes deducted retrospectively get their votes back, or do they need to complain to the CAP?

    Never in a hurry on a bicycle.

    posted by GoingRoundInCycles [134 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 19:52

    like this
    Like (57)

    *** deleted

    Never in a hurry on a bicycle.

    posted by GoingRoundInCycles [134 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 19:53

    like this
    Like (57)

    Get over it.........it was a bit of fun.

    All Campag

    posted by Flying Scot [438 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 19:59

    like this
    Like (94)

    'So when do the contestants who have had votes deducted retrospectively get their votes back, or do they need to complain to the CAP?'

    Or they could just STFU and not give ambulance chasers any further business?

    posted by andyp [783 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 19:59

    like this
    Like (93)

    oh for fucks sake

    "I'm not a celebrity, get me out of here"

    I am having nothing more to do with this thread, it has now gotten ridiculous.

    I started it as I saw irregular and dodgy things being said and done. I wanted those involved to see some clarification. That is all.

    Gkam84's picture

    posted by Gkam84 [8645 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 20:02

    like this
    Like (92)

    Deleted

    posted by si.brown [9 posts]
    18th February 2014 - 23:10

    like this
    Like (94)

    .

    posted by breezergood [35 posts]
    23rd February 2014 - 21:27

    like this
    Like (72)