RoadTest Rule Update: Submitting Identical RoadTest Applications Under Different Names

Mans ingenuity is inexhaustible when it comes to finding ways to gain an advantage.

It could be argued since it wasn't in the rules no foul. Ethics and integrity suggest just because it doesn't say it, doesn't make it right.

Good catch on your part to recognize the duplication. Bad on the part of the conspirator to think it was acceptable to improve their odds of selection by duplicating the application process. Doubly bad on their part for not even modifying the two applications. I suspect he didn't do well in cheating on exams. The dupe and his compatriots all provided the same wrong answers on the test and wondered how they got caught.

I speculate, if the candidate was selected you would not have gotten a RoadTest Review. Yes there are some nice products in the RoadTests I would like to have in my shop but duplicity to achieve such a goal is short sighted.

I don't believe your punitive response is adequate. I feel a year suspension from participating in RoadTests is more appropriate. If found in a subsequent offence then exclusion from participation. Unfortunately, it increases the your logistics of policing the activity.

Sean

I suppose if it were not posted that one could not send in multiple entries under different names, then it is tough to fault them. But, then again, it really depends on their motivation.  One option would be to contact the individual, or individuals, and ask them which entry they prefer since one would be dropped.   However, there is an X-Files chance that the entries are really from two different people yet sharing the same brain.

Of course now they will just tweak then a bit to make them different,

I know this is more work, but perhaps if everyone who wants to register for a road test must have their full address in their BIO, I know I do

Then even with different accounts and submissions, perhaps the address will help sort out the "Cheaters", it is less lightly someone will have a different address for each account, this could be required at registration time for a road test, not after being selected.

I know it is still not perfect but it may help.

This certainly irks me when I hear stuff like this is going on within a supposedly great community (Which it is), the few spoiling it for the many

I'm guessing they weren't particularly good applications anyway. You've mentioned in the past that some people just put the bare minimum like they're just entering a sweepstake for free stuff. This sounds like someone thinking they're doubling their chances of a "win".

Henry Ford said it best "You cannot make anything fool proof because fool's are too ingenious!"

I support your position, if someone is going to that much trouble to game the system, then they are probably in the grab and run category.

I do not feel it is element14's interest to take a risk on this type of person.

DAB

I think you hit this one square on, They are looking to double their chance to WIN. A number of us here have for a while felt the wording for the roadtests does not properly reflect what they are. By saying get a product for FREE people feel it's a lottery or a give away or just fill in your info and get a free product (like the AVNET email about the IoT product).  

This is not the case though. They are anything but free. Do I get a product, YES, do I have to pay money, NO, do I have to spend valuable time working with and reviewing this product YES. So no this is not FREE I pay for it with my time and my (hopefully) quality review.

By saying its FREE or saying its a GIVE AWAY people will treat it as such. Fill in my credentials and expect that FREE product to arrive in the main with no obligations or strings attached. All you need from me is a name, email address and mailing address and I will get a FREE product.

Kas

What if it were really two separate persons and one just copied what the other wrote since the other was more versed in the writing arena? 

Robert Peter Oakes, you have to enter your address in the application.

To Whom It May Concern,

Without additional information it is hard to judge one's motive in this situation.  So, for now I would just chalk it up to someone's honest mistake.  It would be interesting to check with the individual or individuals for what they were thinking.  It would be sad to work so hard on a proposal and have someone else steal their idea, then have both entries disqualified.  On a positive note, by adding the restriction of only one entry per E14 member to the official RoadTest rules makes it clear and improves the process.

Gordon

I find it rather difficult to believe two applicants would come up with verbatim applications independently, so I think if you do find duplication like this, it is not unintentional and likely represents a "bad actor" of sorts. I wouldn't be surprised if those who don't know anything about the program perhaps try to take it to the extreme as with other lottery competitions - automating account sign-ups and spamming duplicate entries by the hundreds of thousands.

I think that any duplicate entries should be disqualified, particularly if it is found that the accounts are recent sign-ups or perhaps the two accounts have been logged in via the same IP or have been signed up on the same/nearby days. Regardless, it is highly suspicious behaviour and I think the RoadTest terms and conditions should cover this in:

1.4 Multiple applications are not permitted.

1.5 Applications may not be submitted by an agent whether acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal or otherwise.

2.3 All applications submitted to this RoadTest must meet the following criteria:

2.3.1 Applicants must be the author, creator and owner of the proposed review idea. Applicants must not submit someone else’s idea.

I suspect maybe that's not clear enough that it refers to the individual rather than an account - but as someone already mentioned - addresses, phone numbers, e-mails are ways of weeding duplicates. But already, given the above conditions, there really doesn't seem to be an excuse for a verbatim-duplicate application. If one had been improved in some way - perhaps this is a sign that someone didn't know how to edit their application post-submission. But there shouldn't be any way for unprivileged members of the site to view other people's applications (short of a few bugs in the early days), so foul play in the way of copying other people's applications can be excluded.

While I think excluding them from recommendation is a relatively light punishment, I would be in favour of excluding them from selection for that RoadTest at a minimum. Perhaps even excluding them from the RoadTest program as a whole would not be too unfair, as it seems very likely that the applicant wanted to have some level of unfair advantage and probably didn't even read or understand the terms and conditions of the RoadTest they were applying for. I suspect such candidates are unlikely to be quality applicants anyway - if they were, perhaps you could reach-out to them for an explanation, but I probably wouldn't go so far.

- Gough