Well i'm glad to finally see this here! Hopefully we can have a good discussion and move things forward in a way which is fair and transparent.
To give my opinion (for what it is worth) on a few points.
Continue to remind members of what an eligible charity is and add that in order to be able to nominate a member needs to have at least one of the following: Be an active member on the community; Have an active sim; Have Payback owing to them
Great ... that is a clear definition of who can nominate. Now we need to find a way which allows all whom this applies to to be able to do so. Everyone who has an active sim is giving to the charity through the giffgaff matching of the donation from their purchasing of credit / goodybags yet there are some currently excluded from the process as they do not have access to the forums.
> At least every working day, update the nomination totals for each charity in a pie chart, so that members can easily see the current state of the nominations. This will make it easier for you to keep track of your nominations and see how they are performing.
absolutely ... but we need to find a way to ensure that discounted nominees are not named and shamed or speculation cast over who it might be.
Promoting the nominations a lot more, by reaching out to members that are active in other areas of the community other than just Announcements as well as our existing promo techniques
well that would have been easy on the old forum... stickied thread with link in GD would have brought many over to announcements to nominate.
Perhaps everyone who is entitled to nominate should be emailed with a direct link ... or even better with a form to complete which could create a post in the nominations thread.
Provide members with a nomination template to make things a little clearer for them when nominating as well making it easier for other members to understand why another member has nominated them.. We understand that not all members will have a device that will have the ability to access this template so this step will be totally optional for you folks!
good plan ... could the template be emailed so the post can be created direct from the email without needing to log into the forum
Change the approach to voting emails so that members who vote understand that their vote applies to each account linked to that email address, and encourage them to have a chat with the other members whose accounts attached to that email address to make sure there’s a consensus on the charity they’ve voted on
I understand the main issues with this are where family members (or super recruiters) have several accounts linked to one email address. TBH I separated all our family accounts onto different emails because I got fed up with only getting info for my sons account as giffgaff systems are not able to cope with sending 2 emails to one address even when it is about different accounts. The better solution would be to fix the giffgaff emails system so that each entitled member gets their own email with unique link. Or only allow one account per email address (controversial!!)
Consult with the community in a tiebreaker situation. Should we need to break ties to arrive at a final five, we will turn to the community for their opinion on the best way we can make this decision.
Er ... no! lets make the decision now as to how this will be decided before we are in the situation and the decision making process is pushed through quickly/ unfairly. Perhaps if there is a tie for 5th place then all the charities in the tie should go through to final voting taking the one place. if the group of charities win their portion of the pot is divided equally between them.
> Clarification on why a nomination has not made the cut so members can keep this in mind when nominating next time and make more informed decisions.
Clarity is really needed when a nomination is discounted. there have been too many instances in the past and this is not explained to the community except that 'checks have been done behind the scenes' I have a huge issue with this. If a nomination is discounted because of an ‘undisclosed interest’ in the charity how do you decide if this was the case. There are 3 people in Glasgow with my (pretty rare) full name, and each of us is involved in different charities... if I were to nominate one of the charities the others are involved with you would likely think I was nominating my own and incorrectly disallow the nomination! If this is the case for someone with a rare name like mine then how much more so is this likely to happen for John Smith.
We absolutely must have a more robust system in place for this ...
A rewards option where the top 5 charities get a percentage of the total charity payback i.e. 1st charity receiving 40%, 2nd receiving 30%, 3rd 15%, 4th 10% and 5th 5%
could work!
Members are able to donate a part of their payback as opposed to the entire amount
I very much support this idea. this way giffgaff would match our partial payback donations which they don't currently do when we donate by text
We should split the charities that are voted on in each period into two categories; big and small (of course we will need your help in defining what classifies as a big charity and a small one, if we decide to go this way).
yes! give the small ones a chance
**Two more things which have been missed from this opener:
1: Can we re-look a the exclusion period for winning charities too please. This was set as 2 years after a discussion in which most members asked for 5-10 or permanent exclusion. How giffgaff ever came up with 2 from it I have no idea... it certainly wasn't 'run by us'
2: One thing you have not included and which has been a re-occurring theme in the previous discussions about this is how nominations should actually be made. The current system still leaves it open to naming and shaming and speculation about discounted nominations and the nominees.
