Loading Profile...
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
During the focused brief based rounds such as the Market Bag, Shoe, Kids, etc. there were many submissions that were virtually identical to each other.
If you have multiple submissions with basically the same exact idea in a focused submission brief, then why shouldn't the influence be distributed in a fashion that gives mroe people with the same idea influence rather than the winner of the popular vote lottery?
The round for Leveler had a few distinct categories of ideation. Same thing for the market bag, same for the shoes, and now for the Dorm. If fivfe people have the same idea and it will be tweaked in ID anyway, then why not take teh winning "idea groups" and then go into concept after that with influence being divided.
It just doesn't make sense to distribute influence the same way on these rounds as the open rounds, as the ideas are very similar compared to standard rounds.
I’m
hopeful
Restructure influence payout for brief based rounds due to similar submissions
Promoted
Responses
-
5Appreciate your point of view. RIght off the top I have to apologize for using the word "privilege" -- wrong word. I should have said Quirky is an "opportunity" not a right.
I certainly agree that Quirky is a company out to make money -- I would hope so, and I hope they make a WHACK of it! It's a creative concept, and a gutsy move.
I still consider it an incredible opportunity though. In a world full of patent lawyers charging huge fees, marketers charging huge fees, yadda yadda, As a member of the Quirky community, I have the privilege (this time I meant to use the word) of presenting an idea to an entire group of like-minded people for at most $10, or free if I participate in the briefs. Quirky will then take community reponse into consideration, as well as their own experience and instincts, and then choose products to take to market.
And, as a creative person, it's an incredible opportunity to have all the creative thinking of all these other creative people out on display for me to enjoy.
Is Quirky perfect? Of course not. Will they ever be? Of course not.
I think most of the people who are disappointed or complaining came in without realistic expectations. Everyone thinks their idea is a great one, and most of us probably feel that at least 90% of the other ideas on this site aren't as good as ours. 100% of us have seen at least one idea that we know absolutely sucked -- and 100% know it was never one of our ideas. That's natural (even though statisically impossible). But it results in a lot of people experiencing the self-inflicted feeling that they got screwed at some point.
And I would rather not have them send an explanation out to every ideator -- imagine how many people they'd have to hire to do that, the salaries that would require, and how much it would cut into the bottom line without increasing profit. As you said, they're a company out to make money. Also, in the business world I work in, far more energy is spent on interacting with customers and keeping them satisfied than on vendors and people soliciting or tendering products and services. Again, I'd much prefer Quirky spend time wooing customers for the products they produce rather than soothing the hurt feelings of us "vendors".
Intellectually, we can confidently say that we want Quirky to pick the best idea, but in our hearts we want Quirky to realize that OUR idea is the best one.
I also think a lot of people are here thinking they'll be the next Bieber of the invention world and finally cash in on the idea they know is worth millions. I make money on a number of different websites, and every single one of those sites has a group of people complaining about how no one can make money on the site -- because they expected a quick and easy buck.
I'm not making money on Quirky yet. If I ever do make significant money, I suspect it'll ONLY be after a long period of consistent effort working the site (just like every other site I make money on). Maybe I'll still be here, maybe I'll lose interest and be gone in a week.
Or, maybe one of my ideas will hit the jackpot and I'll retire rich a month from now -- but it's certainly not part of my financial planning.
If people are making suggestions to try and improve the company or community great. But if it's just whining about not getting what we think we deserve, it's easier -- albeit less satisfying -- to just leave.
As far as I can tell, you've been a member for at least a year... so how bad can it be? -
3For the brief-based rounds, maybe have a "me too" quotient after the evauation is over where ideators that have submitted a similar idea can challenge to be included in the intial influence.
Say 5 people come up with a "hemispherical drillsplail canouter" type widget in the "uses for Unobtanium" round. Entry 57 with its superior graphics is chosen as the winner and is set to gain 30% influence. The four ideators with similar submissions could petition for a "Similarity" stake. The QS could evaluate the similarity, and award a stake of influence if deemed similar.
You could, in essence, go from one ideator @30% influence to 5 ideators with 6% influence each.
This would seem more equitable to all.
In the case of the silicone bag, where the ideator seemingly intentionally crossed into the regular submission round, Those in the free brief would be trumped by the paid submission.
-
1No one can see other people's submissions before a round goes live, so none of the submissions influenced each other. We will not be rewarding the first person to submit an idea in eval in these instances. -
This suggestion is on the table. We need to think carefully about what changes make sense for us as a company, and for all community members. That's why it'll take some time to make progress on this one.
In the meantime, tell us what's on your mind. How would you restructure influence if you had total control? This is a really great place to outline a solution if you have something specific in mind.
-
I’m
equally hopeful!
Thanks for the idea, zymie. This is certainly something we've been thinking about a lot at HQ, and this is an approach that's been thrown around.Comment -
-
This thread need to be revived, especially after the latest few rounds of briefs.
-
-
totally agree zymie - I've seen numerous products win that weren't too different (or the same) from other products during the same round...I feel that most of the community would prefer to share influence rather than gamble that their idea 'might' get picked over the other ones.
Many of us are not graphic artists - and a pretty picture can get more votes than others...but that should not be the sole reason an idea gets picked! -
-
This suggestion is on the table. We need to think carefully about what changes make sense for us as a company, and for all community members. That's why it'll take some time to make progress on this one.
In the meantime, tell us what's on your mind. How would you restructure influence if you had total control? This is a really great place to outline a solution if you have something specific in mind. -
-
3For the brief-based rounds, maybe have a "me too" quotient after the evauation is over where ideators that have submitted a similar idea can challenge to be included in the intial influence.
Say 5 people come up with a "hemispherical drillsplail canouter" type widget in the "uses for Unobtanium" round. Entry 57 with its superior graphics is chosen as the winner and is set to gain 30% influence. The four ideators with similar submissions could petition for a "Similarity" stake. The QS could evaluate the similarity, and award a stake of influence if deemed similar.
You could, in essence, go from one ideator @30% influence to 5 ideators with 6% influence each.
This would seem more equitable to all.
In the case of the silicone bag, where the ideator seemingly intentionally crossed into the regular submission round, Those in the free brief would be trumped by the paid submission.
- view 2 more comments
-
-
-
But when you submit your fork idea, you also know that 50 other people will submit one as well. So you know ahead of time that if Q picks a fork you only have a one in fifty chance of winning influence. That provides a great motivation for coming up with something truly unique. I can then submit a fork with a built-in seafood sauce dispenser -- maybe three other people will do the same. I'm still rewarded for my creative thinking because now my chances are one in four.
By spreading influence for similar ideas, we risk encouraging mediocrity as everyone takes the safe route or chimes in with the first idea that comes to mind (which is usually the first idea that comes to everyone's mind). -
-
Something should be enacted immediately to share influence. Waiting only makes it worse and gets folks more and more frustrated.
Make the change now to share influence for similar submissions. Then, continue to refine and adjust it. But, at least at that point you'll be starting from a point of fairness.
Briefs, by their nature are going to produce similar submissions. And the currrent "Greatest number of votes" just promotes a popularity battle. It becomes the "best technology cheerleader" that is the winner. That's not fair to ideators that don't know technology to creat voting cheer.
Unique ideas that are really problem solving with wow factor will still prevail. -
-
-
-
1I agree with this too. It would also save the community time, right now everyone feels like they need to comment on similar ideas saying theirs is the same idea. Not to mention all the private messages saying "I'll split influence with you if I win" (at least that's what's happened to me multiple times).
Usually the ideas aren't exactly the same but if they solve the same problem then influence should be shared accordingly. Having one winner is great for the "story" but it sure pisses off the losers with similar ideas and doesn't help build a strong community. -
-
I’m
hopeful
Thanks for the details, all. We agree there's room for improvement. The tricky part is hammering out how exactly to improve this.
Keep brainstorming. I'll keep track of it all. -
-
2I think we have to remember that Q is a privilege and not a right. There probably ARE ways to improve things, but we shouldn't be getting upset demanding changes.
No one was forced to come to this site... everyone has a chance to look over the process before submitting an idea (paid or free)... and every single one of us is allowed to go out and try and create our own site/company. Frankly, I don't have the time, energy, resources, brain power and money to do the latter -- so I'm quite happy Q exists at all.
If my blue idea gets bumped by a red but otherwise identical idea it's disappointing -- but I still think I had a better shot than if I had tried to go it alone.-
Spreading out the influence would be a way of reducing the "sour grapes" effect of someone winning In the same round with, in effect, the same idea.
-
-
-
-
-
I’m
a realist
I'm sorry to burst your illusions, but Quirky is not a priviledge, it's a company. As a company Quirky is out to make money. You and me and everybody else who contributes ideas on Quirky website, we're more like vendors, showing our ideas to Quirky and hoping they'll pick our ideas instead of someone elses.
When Quirky picks an idea to develop to a product, they can pick and choose which ever they want, whether we voted for it or not. However, in the name of fair play, it is normal in business to explain. If Q was buying say a printer, they'd send out an RFP for a printer. After evaluation, they decide to pick one company's similar product over all others. The one who lost normally would call and ask why they did it. Quirky would not be required to explain, but it's normally done, especially if they're interested doing more business in the future.
When it comes to Quirky and us on the other hand, Q is not interested in developing long term relationships with any of us. We are expendable and interchangeable, and only as good as our best idea. If it wasn't picked, they're not interested explaining one way or another. They don't have to, it's their company.
Submitting your ideas to Quirky is not a priviledge, it's a transaction. You submit an idea (and pay to submit too), they like it, they buy it (aka you get influence), if they're not interested, they don't, it's simple as that. It's a business.
The trouble is that Quirky wants to portray itself something slightly more than just a business out to make money, and that's where it goes awry. They end up saying one thing and doing something else. But it's their right, it's their company, they can do whatever they want to.-
There is no reason to believe that Quirky is not trying to build a community. Ideas that enable Quirky to spread influence more evenly will, in my opinion, only strengthen the community and make people WANT to stay.
-
-
-
-
-
5Appreciate your point of view. RIght off the top I have to apologize for using the word "privilege" -- wrong word. I should have said Quirky is an "opportunity" not a right.
I certainly agree that Quirky is a company out to make money -- I would hope so, and I hope they make a WHACK of it! It's a creative concept, and a gutsy move.
I still consider it an incredible opportunity though. In a world full of patent lawyers charging huge fees, marketers charging huge fees, yadda yadda, As a member of the Quirky community, I have the privilege (this time I meant to use the word) of presenting an idea to an entire group of like-minded people for at most $10, or free if I participate in the briefs. Quirky will then take community reponse into consideration, as well as their own experience and instincts, and then choose products to take to market.
And, as a creative person, it's an incredible opportunity to have all the creative thinking of all these other creative people out on display for me to enjoy.
Is Quirky perfect? Of course not. Will they ever be? Of course not.
I think most of the people who are disappointed or complaining came in without realistic expectations. Everyone thinks their idea is a great one, and most of us probably feel that at least 90% of the other ideas on this site aren't as good as ours. 100% of us have seen at least one idea that we know absolutely sucked -- and 100% know it was never one of our ideas. That's natural (even though statisically impossible). But it results in a lot of people experiencing the self-inflicted feeling that they got screwed at some point.
And I would rather not have them send an explanation out to every ideator -- imagine how many people they'd have to hire to do that, the salaries that would require, and how much it would cut into the bottom line without increasing profit. As you said, they're a company out to make money. Also, in the business world I work in, far more energy is spent on interacting with customers and keeping them satisfied than on vendors and people soliciting or tendering products and services. Again, I'd much prefer Quirky spend time wooing customers for the products they produce rather than soothing the hurt feelings of us "vendors".
Intellectually, we can confidently say that we want Quirky to pick the best idea, but in our hearts we want Quirky to realize that OUR idea is the best one.
I also think a lot of people are here thinking they'll be the next Bieber of the invention world and finally cash in on the idea they know is worth millions. I make money on a number of different websites, and every single one of those sites has a group of people complaining about how no one can make money on the site -- because they expected a quick and easy buck.
I'm not making money on Quirky yet. If I ever do make significant money, I suspect it'll ONLY be after a long period of consistent effort working the site (just like every other site I make money on). Maybe I'll still be here, maybe I'll lose interest and be gone in a week.
Or, maybe one of my ideas will hit the jackpot and I'll retire rich a month from now -- but it's certainly not part of my financial planning.
If people are making suggestions to try and improve the company or community great. But if it's just whining about not getting what we think we deserve, it's easier -- albeit less satisfying -- to just leave.
As far as I can tell, you've been a member for at least a year... so how bad can it be? -
-
I’m
hopeful
Great discussion going here. Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts. I hope that we can continue to gather thoughts on what feels most "fair" when awarding influence to submissions in brief based rounds.
I would like to say that Quirky aims to treat all community members as partners. Not customers, not vendors, but partners who can disagree but continue to work together. As partners, we need to do a better job of setting people's expectations. That's one of the main points that has surfaced here.
It's true that we can do more to prevent some of this frustration. Some things we can change, and some we can't. Let's keep going together. Keep starting threads when you have an idea, question, problem or praise (hopeful face). That will enable others to chime in with their opinions, and allow me to track the progress of each thread. -
-
Update: We recently bypassed the Concept and Refine phases for product 133, the one-handed hanger because the original submission was so complete. Check out the blog post for details and check out the comments. Jess' comment announced that we'll be awarding the influence that would've been used for the skipped design phases to the ideator.
While it's not a change to the way we award influence in a brief-based round, I thought it was a change worth pointing out. We do want to reward ingenuity here! -
-
I applaud those decisions, Shirley (Product 133). The ideator deserved those points.
To get back to the original question, what if -- AFTER the voting closes, but before "winners" are revealed -- people could agree to split influence, if they wanted? People who were interested could hedge their bets, like settling a case out of court before the verdict is announced. They'd have to agree on a % split, then each email Q separately (to a discrete email address, and opened only after eval). That way, Q wouldn't have to be involved (except to apportion influence as the ideators agreed). -
-
Perhaps a shared influence or a credit back to your acct if a similar product idea has already been submitted for that week (first one in) but a "year" later (not same week) such as my submission, not sure what you can do there?
-
-
I totally agree with those comments that you all really have to either do a "first to upload" (unless someone has a patent, then they get first rights) OR give everyone influence (split it fairly)...just because someone has better renders and may get the popular vote it doesn't mean they should take the cake (so to speak). You have to figure this out guys...fair split across the board is the only fair way to do this, OR first to upload regardless of votes...if you allow all of them to be shown as you are doing now, then the right thing is to look at all similar ideas (even details-perhaps someone has a feature added that none of others did, if you like those features better, you give influence on a % bases)...study it before you pick...make it fair...thanks
-
"First to upload" should have no bearing at all in ideation rounds.
-
-
-
-
-
1Something should be enacted immediately to share influence. Waiting only makes it worse and gets folks more and more frustrated.
Make the change now to share influence for similar submissions. Then, continue to refine and adjust it. But, at least at that point you'll be starting from a point of fairness. Waiting till you get a perfect solution, only makes more unhappy ideators each week.
Briefs, by their nature are going to produce similar submissions. Most ideators have put in a week of work and would look to shared influence as pretty fair for free submission on a weeks work. And the currrent "Greatest number of votes" just promotes a popularity battle. It becomes the "best technology cheerleader" that is the winner. That's not fair to ideators that don't know technology to creat voting cheer.
Unique ideas that are really problem solving with wow factor will still prevail. -
-
1(A response to JJ14's distress and Gaz's response on the forum, where he told us that, if there are two very similar ideas, the QS goes with the one with the most community votes.)
I hate it when the staff refers to the community vote as "fair".
Time and time again we have seen that the "submission" the community prefers is rarely an indication of the "idea" the community prefers..."submission" and "idea" are simply not the same thing, and currently, too many votes are cast for "junk" reasons for them to reliably coincide.
Look, the only way Quirky is going to succeed with this community curation model is if community members and inventors stop leaving Quirky feeling cheated, fooled, and disappointed in the voting system.
And the only way that's going to happen is if Quirky tweaks the system so that the community is voting for the "idea" they prefer...
...not voting for a submission because they think it will win them %,
...not voting for a submission because they like the person,
...but only voting for a submission because they like the idea.
What Gaz has just said is that Quirky will reward those who play the "game"...
...by tapping into voters who will vote for the person,
...by tapping into voters who will vote to win %.
...and that's the last thing Quirky wants.
(a product that wins because the person is popular, that is, etc.)
Gaz, when choosing between two very similar ideas, ignore the vote - it tells you very little about which "idea" the community liked and is nearly as arbitrary a reason to choose as the date submitted or a coin flip.
Instead, go for the details.
If there are two submissions with the same major idea, look at their second most important idea, and pick the one you like.
But, good grief, get away from using the polluted, meaningless voting results for anything except the "raffle tickets" to % they are (...and will be until we can convince the QS to judge and design the vote system based on "results" rather than effort) -
-
(A response to JJ14's distress on the forum about three ideas from her invention showing up in a QDS Concept round submissions.)
I think one of the QS habits that's really hard on inventors right now is that a submission is often chosen (or not chosen) because of details...
...then, during development, the idea is stripped of those details down to it's core concept and redesigned using common ideas - and, as a result, often begins to look like some of the other submissions that also had those ideas.
JJ14, I think you have to consider your invention as a whole.
Covered food containers are not unique in and of themselves. Neither are hooks or containers for sauce bottles.
But, put them all together with a waterproof ice tray and your original design for the lids...and you have your innovative invention.
I think the key is to not pull an idea back out of the group of ideas that make up an invention and think of it as being as innovative as the whole invention is.
When pulled away from the invention, an idea becomes common again.
And, IMO, because trays, hooks, food containers, and bottle holders are so common in the BBQ world, even the three together on a tray is a common concept.
It was those three ideas morphed together with the rest of your invention that created your innovation.
(Essentially you are claiming that the reason the QDS added covered food containers, hooks, and a bottle container to their Concept submission is because you suggested them. I think those ideas are simply too commonly used in the BBQ world for that to be likely.) -
-
Two things seem to have happened at Quirky in the last several months.
1. The tagline phase was eliminated, freeing up 5% of influence.
2. Multiple Concept round winners seems to be happening more often, resulting in ideator influence down in the 1%'s
I think those two things represent a way to meet a need - consistently "motivating" influence % for Concept round ideators.
I'd like to suggest that Quirky change the Concept % system a little.
Currently, it seems that 5% is split between the chosen ideator(s) and the voters. About 3.5% going to (and split by) the ideator(s) and 1.5% going to the voters (unless QDS is the sole winner, then the voters get the whole 5%).
I'd like to see that changed so that the voters always get 1.5%,
A non-QDS ideator always gets 3.5%.
If there are two ideators chosen, they each get 3.5%, with the extra 3.5% for the second ideator coming from tagline's 5%.
Three or more ideators split 8.5% (3.5% plus tagline's 5%)
If the QDS is the winner, the voters still get 1.5% and the other 3.5% goes to the pre-sale kitty.
If the ideator's influence % is set, then successful collaboration will no longer mean loss of 1/2, which, IMO, will make it more common.-
Clinton, I think you're moving away from the topic.
-
-
-
-
-
@Clinton - exactly - the simple fact that nearly all products are stripped down before being built up again is why I feel that any products that are very similar (i.e. zip-top silicon bags...one w/ a vacuum pump feature in the description, one without...the one without wins. Or the silicon frame glasses - both submissions had exactly the same idea - one just had a prettier picture and won the popular vote) should share influence.
Now I'm not saying just because Quirky asked for a Grill Brush this week, and you came up with some sort of grill brush idea that did not share many of the details of the winning Grill Brush concept that influence should be shared. But if Quirky asked for a "Grilling" idea, and you came up with a "Self-basting grill brush with LED light", and the winner was a "Self basting grill brush with LED light AND timer", influence should be shared.
While this isn't something easy to define in words, anyone can look at two ideas and judge how similar they are to one another...that's all I'm asking for, a qualitative judgement by the Quirky staff to make sure that similar ideas are accounted for. This doesn't have to be a huge undertaking with some sort of in-depth quantitative process - just compare side by side and make a call. -
-
Clinton, this is exactly what I was thinking for splits...no excuses, you have to do this to keep your community happy...even if you decide the %'s are different, it will keep people happy and the system fair.
-
-
2Alice had a great idea for splitting influence on similar ideas. This would be great if Q started from this point and then refine as they go. But, to wait to start any kind of splitting is going to really mess up the community:
Alice | 05/23/2011 | 12:12 PM
I have an idea:
If there were more than one idea submitted that are essentially the same – if one of the idea wins...
Both should get selected and influence should be split proportionate to the score they received.
So let’s say two equal ideas were selected. Idea A received a score of 40 and Idea B received a score of 60 (based on community score and other scores). The overall influence for idea is 33.33%. Idea A receives 40% of 33.33 = 13.2% and Idea B receives 60% of 33.33 = 20%.
I think this would be fair because community input is valued, the person who was able to “sell” their idea better gets more influence, and both ideas get influence.
Also this would make it easier to vote for ideas – you wouldn’t have to vote for all similar ideas but only vote for the one you like most.
What do you guys think?-
I REALLY LIKE THIS SOLUTION!!!
-
-
-
-
-
probably said before... but I guess the easiest way would be to just distribute the idea influence between all the equal ideas...
I guess the hard part is how to tell if it's the same idea or not... some are obvious, some are not (may be VERY similar, but with a tiny twist)... I think this line would be a hard one to draw...
how to split the influence? if it's the same idea then I guess it should be equally... the reason why one got more community points than the other may have nothing to do to the actual idea (a name behind the idea may have more push, the ideator may have more friends, it was "far down on the list" so nobody actually got to see it, etc, etc)... these are all reason that escape the idea per-se, so that's why I think that the influence should be split equally... -
-
I’m
frustrated that this is not being fixed
2The App-enabled hardware brief is a glaring example of how this issue needs to be fixed!
Not only does it penalize ideators, it penalizes voters as well!-
See next post: my comment to Shirley
-
-
-
-
-
1No one can see other people's submissions before a round goes live, so none of the submissions influenced each other. We will not be rewarding the first person to submit an idea in eval in these instances.
-
How about the same idea posted before that specific round? I posted a "Bluetooth-controlled PLUG" in the "iPad Accessories" round and then I did the same when it came to "App Enabled Hardware". The same idea won this last round, but it wasn't mine!! How can I be sure people didn't come out with the same idea because I've already published it in the past? Is it fair to post someone else's idea, improving graphics and concepts in order to win the round?
-
-
-
-
-
I’m
frustrated
That is not how IP works in the patent world...you should really talk with your lawyer about this...seriously, if someone has posted before someone else, has "proof" that they created it early that the one chosen, you will run into an IP issue and could be sued, all parties...please do not let this go, perhaps your lawyer needs to step in at this point, it's a huge huge issue!
-
-
Zabber, IMO that may be true about patents and the real world, but Quirky is not issuing patents, and the submission round is not the "real world".
According to the TOS: at the moment we submit, we leave the real world and we automatically pass any IP rights to Quirky.
So, in effect, when the round goes live, all submissions are owned by one entity - Quirky.
The result is that there is no entity with IP rights different from another entity - Quirky is the only entity.
In other words, Quirky can't be first before itself.
When the round is complete, any IP rights of winners (if any) remain with Quirky permanently, while any IP rights for non-winners is automatically released back to the submitter.
ha - Who are then back in the real world. -
-
So quirky trumps real world patent laws, I think not...sorry, that won't fly!
-
-
The patent laws guide the patent office in issuing patents.
It's not that Quirky trumps the patent laws, it's simply that they don't apply -
-
Clinton, seriously, unless you know what you are talking about, stop...there are patent laws that protect IP, first to invent, doesn't matter if they don't have protection once they ideator puts it out for public display that's when the 12 months starts...also, no company trumps any patent law... nothing...You should do your homework...I wish that the lawyer would pop in and explain to the world what quirky is going to do with first to invent issues, PPA's and how they view posting of like ideas...it's not for us to interpret the law as it is, they have to follow the law everyone does....
-
-
This thread remains open to identify opportunities for sharing influence. I would encourage everyone to stay on point, or else you're working against the longer term goals here. We're here and listening. Keep it productive.
Our decision is final for the App-enabled hardware round. You can add your thoughts about it to that specific discussion. Again, keep it productive. Comments that are pure conjecture or of a personal nature will be deleted. -
-
Similar ideas should be able to be credited across rounds. So if a similar idea was submitted to a brief and then in the concept phase an element of that idea is used the original submitter should get influence if they were not the submitter of the idea in concept phase.
That is my gripe in the other thread. That ideas submitted in similar submissions are being lumped into the winning submission even though the winner didn't think of them. -
-
To a certain extent, products are bundles of features. Why not do for the Brief round what is in the works for the ID round and assign the actual Influence after the fact once it becomes clear which particular aspects of an idea end up being incorporated? In Dave's case the things that make it into the final app-enabled hardware piece that were mentioned in his submission alone would earn him full credit for that feature, whereas the ones which multiple people suggested get divided up.
I suppose the argument could be made that this would require judgment calls to be made, but at least that would be hard work worth the effort in the spirit of doing the right thing versus being absolutist about it just because it isn't as messy. -
-
Everyone, I'm here and keeping an open mind. One of the most important things I do here is engage our community members in this conversation about what works, what doesn't work, and what could work better. The more views represented here, the more we can find ways to improve.
One major request: please do not accuse anyone of "stealing" ideas. Unless there is concrete proof, that is a very damaging accusation to throw around. I really think it's a shame that feelings over the situation have affected the winning ideator's experience. Call the team out on anything you feel should be corrected, but please do not start attacking each other. -
-
C/P from another thread on this topic:
It seems as though there is an institutional reluctance to share Influence among folks. That much is clear, but what is confusing is why that is true in this area alone when the entire system is predicated on doing just that. Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is X% of Influence up for grabs to those who complete the survey, that gets evenly divided amongst the respondents. Same for picking the colors, divide the available Influence among everyone who chose the winning entry. Heck, even the main submission voting on ideas during the eval rounds works that way, only it is complicated by an individual's number of total votes made. So in the end why can't this aspect of Invented Together be given that same treatment? -
-
I don't think anyone really thinks that ideas are being stolen by other users.
But if features implemented by Quirky can be shown to have direct similarities to features in an idea that was extremely similar to the idea that won, Quirky should give influence to the person with the idea that gave rise to those features.
Even if the idea happens over a natural discussion in the Quirky office there is no way for it to be disproved that the idea didn't originate with a losing submission that a Quirky staffer saw previously when looking through submissions looking for a wild card. -
-
I added something like this on Dave's thread to:
If Quirky is going to take similar entries, then they should at least 1)Put like ideas all on ONE PAGE ...that way we could look and see more apples to apples 2) I know they all go "live" the same time on Mondays, but Q could put the date & time they were entered and so in this case I would have known Dave got his in first, which seems picky, but if votes are not making the distinction this could. -
-
2I don't know squat about patent law or IP law and I won't pretend to have that knowledge, but what I do know is that issues that involve money are usually settled in court by lawyers. Most Quirky payouts are not significant enough for a big legal battle, but imagine if you had this issue surrounding Pivot Power. Just because someone checked the little box agreeing to the TOS does not remove all of their legal recourse and if enough cash is involved it will end up in a court room. I am not saying this because I am unhappy with Quirky, I love Quirky. It is by far the most interesting company and community going today and I would hate to see Quirky destroyed by something that can be improved. Often times the argument surrounding liability is did the responsible party do every thing it could reasonably do to prevent the action in the first place.
-
You raise an interesting point here. The TOC says if they chose your idea then the IP is transferred to them. But in the instance of the app-enabled hardware they are saying only the one person is the winner. That means you have 5, 6 or more people with essentially the same idea feeling slighted and knowing that Quirky will be investing in the concept. What is to keep one of them from pursuing a patent and hijacking the whole process? The Q legal team would be forced into battle with one arm tied behind its back b/c they can hardly argue they own the rights when they refuse to recognize such with an award of Influence points.
-
-
Lawyers find holes. When there is enough money at involved it becomes worthwhile for them to spent some time looking, so why not close off some that are those holes. By assign even a small amount of influence to each person they can say they own the right and that the person is being compensated for their effort. Furthermore, people are less likely to pursue the legal path when they included and are waiting to see how much the influence will end up being worth. In these cases Quirky is saying it was selected because it got the most votes, which if they always selected the idea with the most votes they could make the argument that the only thing that influenced the decision was votes, but because they have made it clear they can select what ever they want someone else who submitted can claim that the decision was based on other criteria.
-
-
-
-
-
1Ken, your right, I told Ben this awhile back on a phone conversation with the BBQ round. If you don't take all the IP, then someone will go out and try to license the idea and has every right to do that being that it's public and it's their IP (not chosen). It's just a matter of time before someone does it. I hope that legal can jump in Shirley and provide some closure to this subject.
-
-
I'm new here. And I can say that I noticed this problem within the first few hours of being a member. I was looking through the ideas on the brief for that week and I notice a few that were the same idea, or very similar. Which created my first question... Who should I vote for? and then my second question. If idea (a) wins, what happens with idea(b)? So I asked around on the forum and read up... And I was pretty disappointed in Quirky within 3 hours of being a member. I then realized that the winners were usually the ones that made the most noise or had the most "allies", or the prettiest rendering. I started seeing a lot of things that seemed pretty unfair. And I am sure it was not designed to be that way intentionally... But it definitely is a huge flaw with this system. I don't think that you can come up with a solution to this without a starting point. I think Quirky should start by having a little button on the winning product page that lets others with similar ideas claim influence. If the idea is similar enough, split the influence, And then from the 50/50 split let quirky adjust that split based on how complete the ideas are, and which features will be added or not. if one is the same but has one extra feature.... divide the influence 60/40 and so on.... That seems fair to me. But doing nothing and waiting for the perfect solution is not the right way to do this. What if all of your efforts are put into a new system which is also broken or a flaw is exploited again? Mold the solution... make it a process. That will get the best results.
-
