Poll: How Can I Get You More Active In The RoadTest Program?

Was going to suggest this, but wasn't sure how it would be received.

Perhaps store credit/gift card would be easier than shipping a physical item, and they can choose anything they wish.

I agree that members would like to know if they made the first cut and the second cut, etc. I know I would, but I wouldn't ask that the process be changed in this way, because I don't think it would make the process more interesting.

If the short lists were published we would wind up with a couple more rounds of members getting congratulated on making the cut, but that has pros and cons as well.

The suspense period while waiting for the final decision is a motivator that keeps everyone checking in on the site more often. This probably trumps the downsides.

Feedback on why each proposal that was not successful would be very useful of course, but that would involve a monumental amount of work. If a member wants feedback on their proposal they can simply post it and ask the members for feedback.

It is hard to build drama and suspense into a technical forum, but when it is possible, it heightens interest.

Hello Gough,

I agree with your comments but I have a different point of view regarding the feedback. To know on which pile you were is important at a certain point (I know some may disagree with me, that this is maybe an impossible thing to do given the amount of applications and some might consider unfair if done only for some), but my take here is that we all are encouraged to keep applying for future RTs if not successful and knowing at which stage your application was dropped may help yourself identifying what you are probably lacking (is it your writing skills, is it your technical knowledge about the product, etc.). E.g. If I know I made it to the last cut, I will assume I'm in the right direction and probably something the supplier was looking for was missing. On the other end, if I get dropped in the 2nd cut -this is the first screening after you passed the minimum which is filling up the application correctly, and I don't know it, I may end up going in a completely different direction that is probably not going to improve my chances in the future and hence I understand the frustration of some that have tried many times without any luck.

Luis

That would have to be tested in court. From what I can tell, Australia probably doesn't work that way - if you're drawing anything by random chance - even if it's only part of the selection (towards the end) - that is considered a game of chance.

For example - see https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/games-of-chance/promoting-a-business/trade-promotion-lottery, which leads to needing to apply for one of these - https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/apply-trade-promotion-lottery-permit-single-lottery

If the element of chance determines the winner, the requirements we’ve set out must be met. Unless qualified or expert judges are used and the winner is decided against a set criteria, a competition is not based on skill – it is based on chance.

This is why I myself, have refrained from running giveaways in the past. The rules in Australia makes it no fun.

- Gough

Gough Lui

you got it wrong. the only part of this that is a lottery. who finally gets chosen.

. Draw LOTS!! ie bingo style. 3 per kit. (publish the results of the DRAW) this way you know If you are in contention for one of the kits.

then only send the 3 per kit to the sponsor for them to choose. hence NO Lottery.

To be honest, that just sounds like random with a few extra steps of pre-screening for qualification and publishing a draw result (similar to a number of sports). While this may seem fairer to some, it may not achieve the best value for all parties, which is something which I feel rscasny is trying to optimise.

But legally speaking, there is another potential issue with your idea - a giveaway that is done as a lottery by random chance actually requires licensing in Australia on a state by state basis (and I suspect in other countries as well), which requires things like external oversight, published draw dates and times, etc. This makes it potentially impractical just on a legal position to be compliant - which is why we (in Australia) often miss out on many giveaways. Games of skill (i.e. where it is conducted based on creativity or merit of response) are excluded from needing to comply with such legal issues.

- Gough

Gough Lui This crap of who is on first, what is on second and where is thrid, Is just garbage. how about this:

1. verify that they can do what they are "bidding for" background, etc. Ask them for their CV!  ie I would not bid on an FPGA project as I have no background in this field.

2. IF step 1 passes then assign a number to the entrant.

3. Draw LOTS!! ie bingo style. 3 per kit. (publish the results of the DRAW) this way you know If you are in contention for one of the kits.

4. ONLY Send 3 per kit to the provider. Let them choose one of each three!  So if you had three Kits A, B, C. you will have three piles of three they must choose one from each pile! so you cant have two from A and one from B and none from C.

Well said, Gough.

The other thing that I noticed for station240 is that his profile is incomplete (as in: no name, no picture, not much info, twitter account is mentioned but it doesn't share any personal things).

I thought that was a requirement for RoadTests? I could be wrong.

In any case, if I were a supplier looking to select someone to review my products, I would be more likely to pick the applicants I can find a bit more information for.

-Nico

I wish my pen had the ink and/or I had the mental fortitude to create such a summary. My complements.

Sean

station240  wrote:

Randall has stated many times, he has narrowed down the applicants to a certain number, sometimes twice.

Say there are 3 Kits on offer, the applicants are narrowed down to 20 in the first round, then 6 in the second round. The supplier then gets sent those 6 applicants.

Now at no point do we know what pile our application ended up in, were you in the final round or was the application binned the moment it was first read ?

I don't think that is exactly correct. I believe rscasny is not narrowing down to a certain number - he is narrowing them based on the quality and completeness of the applications. How many survive each round highly depends on the quality and competitiveness of the applications - see the latest Tektronix 3-series MDO RoadTest for example - 112 to 111 to 27 to 11 which are sent on to the suppliers. In cases of low applicants, sometimes everything is done in one round.

While we aren't told whether we have survived each round of culling - I don't see how that necessarily matters. If your application doesn't have what they're looking for, you won't win either way. It might give you a push to improve your application - but if you're not putting your best foot forward from day one, you're really just shortchanging yourself. Likewise, just because you feel your application has an edge over the others because it is somewhat different, does not necessarily mean that it would interest the suppliers or sponsors. It could be perceived as risk sometimes. The quality of your application in terms of its polish can be important as well - think of it like a job application, you need to show you have the ability to express yourself well.

station240  wrote:

A better system would be to select ALL the promising applications, sort them by experience level (previous roadtests), compare how many Roadtests they have done to actual knowledge in other areas.

I believe that's how it's basically done with some subtleties - when you say "ALL" the promising applications - that necessarily means that there has been a cull of sorts. That's exactly what is done now - as it would be impractical to have a supplier wade through a hundred applications on their own. Experience level and to some extent, knowledge, is assessed - based on their track record of meeting RoadTest deadlines, based on community participation question and based on specific questions relevant to a given class of product. Some RoadTest application forms have a number of different questions where you can demonstrate these factors.

It would not be reasonable, however, to expect Randall to go through 100 applicant's profiles, read all of their latest posts and verify their biographies to ensure they have experience. Likewise, if you impose that it is sorted by experience level, you're working against the newcomers if you choose to make a random selection out of the top 10 as you propose - those that are high on the experience level are necessarily those that have been previously chosen based on your criteria. A purely random selection is mostly avoided for the reasons already mentioned.

Randall has said, when there are a number of kits - there is often one kit or more reserved for newcomers. That's why RoadTest applications have a field "If you have been selected as an official RoadTester in the past year ..." where you can select "Haven't been selected before", which I believe will put you into that category. Breaking into the RoadTest program is acknowledged as a potential difficulty for newcomers, but if you compare the snippets of applications that Randall has released over the years about applications which didn't stand a chance, you can perhaps understand the quality of applications varies wildly.

station240  wrote:

If 0 Roadtests but really knowledgeable in application and forum posts, then admit something went wrong and you need to let them review something.

I think this is perhaps, the bone you are trying to pick - but I'm not sure I agree with this. Someone who may be knowledgeable may not always be the best applicant for a RoadTest - it depends on what the supplier wants and it depends on a number of other factors. I believe Randall mentioned in the past, that there have been some applications from highly-knowledgeable Professors, that did not turn in a good RoadTest review because of issues with time commitments or poor expression, etc. Having knowledge is a bonus, but also being able to manage time, have some commitment, troubleshoot problems independently, have access to the necessary equipment and have the skills to communicate that knowledge in a professional, clear and sustained manner is perhaps even more important.

The one thing I really disagree with is that you think that this is a cause to admit something went wrong, and "you need to let them review something." RoadTests are a privilege, not an entitlement. Nobody needs to be given anything to review. It's a nice perk of being on element14 - the price we pay for the items is to put in work into an application and into the review process.

If you think that posting a lot of knowledgeable posts automatically entitles you to a RoadTest, I don't think you understand how this process works. I'd suggest making sure you make the best use of the application to put your best foot forward - all culls are based on the application's content including questions which cover areas other than the test plan (i.e. community participation, professionalism, knowledge about the product, motivations, expertise).

- Gough