Author Options:

Unfeatured Winners Answered

11 of the 26 winners in the How to Play a Game contest were not featured. Were there really not 26 feature-worthy ibles, or were at least some of them overlooked?


This was a slightly experimental challenge and it ended up having a very low feature rate but we still had 26 prizes to give away. All entries passed the same scrutiny and review of any other project on the site, and there just happened to be a lower feature rate with the content in this contest.

My two penn'th;

A lot of the instructables were instructions for existing games, or didn't require that anything be made. Photos of playing cards or dice don't make good candidates for a Feature.

In a situation like that, the key to Featuring is the story and the writing. I wasn't involved in the judging, or any discussions around it, but it is my opinion that the key to the Stump entry winning was the artwork, drawn especially by the author.

Ibles don't seem to be featured as much now that the homepage featured rotation looks like it crawls along. For me, the channel subfeaturing doesn't garner as much views as did the homepage. Maybe they are just trying to prop up the value of free pro memberships.

It seems to me that an ible garnering enough votes to win a contest is most likely high enough quality to deserve at least a channel feature. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing they should have been featured before, but perhaps should be now. It is also possible that the contest was a bit of a flop in that it didn't inspire many ibles that staff found to be exciting and feature-worthy.

Is there actually any way of distinguishing between the two types of featuring, aside from guessing based on views?

In just about every contest I look at there is at least one result that leaves me wondering how that project got featured (if it even did) much less won a prize. I didn't follow this one at all but that proportion of non-featured winners does sound very high.

I have given up losing sleep over how Robot thinks. All I know is that Robot seems to follow tallies of numbers that indicate something opposite of the opinions expressed by the few in the forums.

I think the contests cough up funny results from voting patterns rather than robotic influence.

They've made some pretty good improvements over the last few years. Authoring has got easier, there are a metric crapton of contests and they're clearly driving a lot of traffic these days. It is interesting that the level of engagement wrt comments etc has barely changed while the #views has skyrocketed, though.

Ha, I only use "Robot" in the sense of the royal Autodesk "We".

I do appreciate more just one thoughtful or inquisitive comment made than viewcounts or likes. Comments are getting rarer though.