Choose the selection method before opening a competition. Participants need to know whether you will reward public support, evaluate announced criteria or combine several signals under a defined rule.
A community campaign and a technical prototype challenge can need different methods. Explain the method in the brief and connect each award to the result you intend to measure.
Define the public vote and each award
Public voting lets an audience support entries. Network size and sharing can affect that support. If public votes determine an award, state that in the rules rather than describing the result as an independent technical assessment.
A separate Public Prize can recognize community support while a Grand Prize follows the configured jury or organizer method. For mixed scoring, publish the weights and calculation rules before voting starts. Participants should not have to infer the official winner from a public counter.
Competition visibility and evaluation access are separate settings. A public brief does not mean that visitors can inspect private submissions or cast a jury vote.
Invite reviewers and confirm acceptance
Use an authorized Organizer or Jury Manager role to arrange jury work. Invite the intended account or email identity and check the acceptance status. Access to the Jury workspace, a pending invitation and an active assignment describe different stages.
Ask the invited juror to sign in with the matching identity, read the mission and accept or decline. Then review the assigned work and deadline. A title in an organization does not assign someone to every competition.
Expert Jury status follows its own review and manual validation process. A paid subscription does not grant it, and the status does not replace a competition assignment.
Save a draft before making the final evaluation
A juror should read the brief, criterion definitions and confidentiality rules before entering scores. They can save an in-progress evaluation if they need to return before the deadline.
For the final evaluation, the juror checks the scores and comment, confirms impartiality and submits. An in-progress draft is not a final evaluation. Organizers should track those states before deciding that the jury work is complete.
Read criterion scores alongside the overall result. A creator may stand out in originality without leading on feasibility. Review the entry and context before using that strength to propose a later collaboration.
Declare a conflict and arrange another reviewer
A juror should declare a conflict if they know a participant, are linked to the organization or cannot assess an entry. They should explain the reason through the evaluation conflict action rather than recording an invented low score.
The organizer can review the declaration and reassign the evaluation. Keep the reason for that decision in the review history so authorized managers can understand the change.
Keep restricted submissions within the authorized process. Sending private material to another reviewer outside the assignment can bypass the participant confidentiality expectations.
Explain provisional results and disputes
Check the completeness of reviews and the selected award method before publishing results. For tournaments, review the scores and confirmed decisions used for progression, with duel durations that fit the overall voting window.
If results remain provisional, state the dispute deadline and route. Resolve a supported dispute against the announced rules and retain the reason for the decision.
Use the Jury guide for invitations and evaluations. The voting guide covers access, criterion scores and result review.
