Public access judging is a fantastic way of driving engagement, but may not always be an accurate way to find legitimate winners. With any award program, competition is inevitable and some may take the motivation to win quite seriously. For most, this leads to an improvement in quality to beat out others vying for honours. For others, it may spur a temptation to game the outcome in their favour.
A key step in preventing fraud is simply to communicate your organisation's expectations and position on fraudulent behaviour, including the penalties for participating in such behaviour; i.e. a zero tolerance policy and disqualification. Use content blocks throughout the judging area to clarify your stance and provide users with education on fair practices. Doing so not only helps to deter fraudsters, but can boost the credibility of your program.
Beyond your communication, the Award Force platform has mechanisms in place to limit abuse, such as:
- Requiring registration with a unique and verified active email address
- Bot detection and blocking to prevent automated / scripted registration and voting
- Rate limiting to prevent rapid voting where multiple votes are allowed
- Detailed logging of votes / scores for auditing
Before determining final results and announcing winners, it's advised that you take the time to audit the data for anomalies or unusual activity. For programs that utilise Voting, the default 'Votes + comments' export includes the IP address associated with each vote which can help to identify bad actors. To learn more about exporting data in Award Force, check out our Ultimate guide to exports.
The only way to blindly guarantee the results are accurate with public access judging (i.e. one vote per person) is through the use of a digital identify verification system which could be seen as an intrusive obstacle for community engagement.
If your program suspects foul play, contact our client success team for assistance in investigating.