The criteria for an awards
program is the list of requirements that applicants must meet in
order to receive an award from your program. This is one of
the trickiest parts about building an awards program, and there is
much disagreement about it. Attempting to tell you the proper
way to write your criteria is probably the same as trying to tell
you the proper way to raise your child. Everybody has
different ideas about what is right and what is wrong, and the
discussion of this subject can start (and HAS started) a lot of
arguments!
Whatever criteria you use, it should be written as clearly and
unambiguously as possible. Your criteria should be as
specific as your mission and/or purpose allows. It should not
be necessary for the award seeker to guess what it is you're
requiring -- it should be clear from your criteria. If you
offer different levels of awards, it should be clear what is
necessary to obtain each level. And the criteria should be
something you feel comfortable with enforcing fairly among all
applicants.
Your criteria will most likely change and evolve as you gain
experience with evaluating sites and giving awards. This is a
normal part of your program's development. Your criteria will
never be "finished," nor will anything else about your program --
not if you're doing it the right way.
Below are some areas that you might consider when you are forming
your award program's criteria. Be sure that you are clear on
the mission and/or purpose of your program -- your criteria should
always be consistent with this mission and/or purpose.
Competitive or
non-competitive: Will sites only need to meet your criteria in
order to win an award, or will they also be competing against each
other? (In a competitive awards program, you may award a
First, Second and Third Place, deciding from among all sites which
apply during a one-month period, or a three-month period, or a
one-year period, etc.)
Type of site: Will you allow business sites? Personal
sites? Non-profit organization sites? Will you allow
only family-friendly sites? Will you allow any type of adult
material? (This doesn't necessarily mean pornography -- it
can include discussion of sexual issues, domestic abuse, suicide,
artistic nudity, offensive material, political satire, etc.)
Will you restrict your award to sites that are based on a
particular theme (automobiles, stamp collecting, educational
materials, etc.)? Will you allow gambling sites? Will
you allow sites that advocate particular religious beliefs, perhaps
beliefs with which you do not agree? Can another awards
program apply for your award?
Language: Will you evaluate only sites that are written in
your native language, or will you allow sites written in other
languages as well? If so, what other languages?
Technical considerations: Must the applicant have designed
the site from the ground up, using nothing but hand-coding?
Do you care if a site is made with a WYSIWYG site-building utility
(Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc.)? Do you care if a site is
built using a FrontPage/Dreamweaver theme or a pre-made site
template? Are you concerned that a site's HTML coding be
correct? Does it matter to you if a site's coding meets W3C
standards, or standards for accessibility by people with
disabilities? Do you care if a site is built so that it can
be viewed correctly only with a particular browser, or only with
certain technology (for example, Macromedia Flash or JavaScript),
or only at a particular screen resolution? What if something
on their site crashes your browser? What if the site tries to
load a virus onto your computer? Are you concerned if the
site has a lot of broken links on it? What about missing
graphics? What about a confusing, complicated or non-existent
navigation system?
Advertising considerations: Will you be concerned if a site
contains advertising banners? How about pop-up and pop-under
ads? How about ads that try to load "spyware" onto your
computer, perhaps without asking your permission? If you
think there should be a limit on ads, how many is too many?
Graphic considerations: Must all graphics on the site be
original, or doesn't it matter? How do you feel about the use
of animated graphics -- perhaps, a lot of animated
graphics? How about a background graphic or wild colors that
make it difficult to read the text?
Content considerations: Will you be concerned with proper
grammar, or spelling, or punctuation? (If you evaluate sites
in other languages, how will you reliably check
grammar/spelling/punctuation in those languages?) Will you be
concerned about profanity on a site? Do you expect the site's
content to be all original, or mostly original, or does it
matter? Do you want the content to be focused on a particular
subject, or can it be a random collection of odd subjects?
What if part of all or the site requires a membership, or a
password? What if the only content on a site is links to
other sites?
Aesthetic considerations: Will your first impression of a
site be considered? Must you personally "like" a site before
you will award it? Will you be considering the overall
impression of a site? The combination of colors on a
site? Will you consider the use of music on a site, perhaps
music that can't be turned off?
Legal considerations: Will you give awards to sites
that are violating someone's copyright? (This can include
music, written material and graphics.) How about sites that
advocate overthrowing a government, or committing violence against
a person or group of people, or committing some illegal
act?
While you're thinking about all of
that, here is something that is not often considered by the new
awards master: Could you win your own award? In other
words, does your own site meet the criteria that you are asking
other sites to meet? Can you actually do what you are asking
others to do? (If you can't, what does that say about the
credibility of your awards program?)
Now, here is a dose of reality for you. No matter how much
time and effort and thought you put into writing your criteria, a
high percentage of your applicants simply will not read it.
They'll go straight to your application and apply.
Some awards programs try to counteract this by using a checking
technique -- a way to see if the applicant has actually read
the criteria (at least, that is the intent). A few checking
techniques we have seen in award programs:
A secret password or
instruction somewhere in the criteria. There is usually a
space on the application for the password, or a question that must
be answered in a particular way. (For example: "When the
application asks "have you read the criteria?' you should answer
NO.") Sites may be disqualified or penalized for answering
the wrong way, or rewarded for answering the right way (for
example, bonus points added to their score).
A decoy application form. Typically, the site navigation
points to this form, which looks like a normal application.
Someone who has not read the criteria might go straight to this
application, fill it out and send it. But those who read the
criteria find a hidden link to the real application
form. Applications from the decoy form are
ignored.
The use of checking
techniques in an awards program is controversial; certainly the
success of such techniques is uncertain. There are definitely
awards seekers who become skilled at quickly scanning criteria and
picking out secret passwords. The choice of whether to try a
checking technique is yours.
