What a lovely time for a Reader Appreciation Day. Just a quick note to say congratulations to Pamela, winner of the Love Kit. :) In case you wondered how the winner was selected, I took the total number of entries on Twitter and www.funkybrownchick.com and added the digits together. For example, if eleven (11) people entered … 1 + 1 = 2, I would’ve awarded the prize to the second entry. If 15 people entered … 1 + 5 = 6, so the sixth entry would’ve won. And, so on. I wanted a fair way to generate a random winner, and that seemed easy enough.
For Valentine’s Day, Pamela says she might have dinner with friends or enjoy solo time with “wine, salmon, and a long Lush bath.” (Sounds fun!) As the winner, she’ll likely receive lip balm, Whitney Casey’s 256-page guide The Man Plan, chocolates, a Match.com membership discount coupon, a manicure set, a free 30-day online movie rental subscription and other stuff. Huge THANK YOUs to the lovely folks at Match.com for getting down with the Funky Brown by hooking up an FBC reader with a love kit!
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
You might want to consider a different method of generating a winner in the future, if your aim is fair. Imagine that between 1 and 20 people post. Who are our winners?
1 enters = 1 wins
2 enter = 2 wins
…
10 enter = 1 wins
11 enter = 2 wins
…
19 enter = 10 wins
20 enter = 2 wins
So, according to this scheme, if 20 people enter, people numbers 11 through 20 have no chance at all of winning. Person 10 has 1 chance to win, people 1, and 3-9 have 2 chances to win, and person 2 has 3 chances of winning. In short, this is not a fair distribution but a weighted one.
The easiest fair way to do it is to generate a random number between 1 and the total number of entries. You can do this in a number of ways: roll a die (if you have one with the correct number of sides), use a deck of cards (for up to 13 use the face value of the card), or use a random number generator program (there are some on the internet, such as random.org).
I completely agree with the previous comment. I am sorry but it is very unreasonable for you to find the winner. For example I commented 15th, so there is no way I would ve win unless overall number of people entered = 69, 78, 87, 69. Really? Such a disappointment!
A: Thanks for the tip re: random.org :)
Upset: Oh sweetie! I’m sorry you’re upset :( Rest assured, this isn’t the first giveaway I’ve hosted on the site — i.e. I’ve also given away calendars, books, porn, etc — and it won’t be the last. Each time, I’ve used different methods to pick a random winner. That said, I won’t use this method again. For what it’s worth, for this particular contest, an auto random number generator could’ve produced the number 2; In that case, 15 (or 20 or 11 or etc) still would’ve been eliminated.
Best thing about hosting a contest? I get a chance to give something away to 1 entry. Worst thing? Usually, I don’t have the opportunity to give something away to EVERY entry. Sorry! :(
Congrats Pamela! I’m a fan of random.org too, but I definitely think we should be grateful that our lovely Funky Brown Chick posted the method behind her choice. Very transparent. Not every blogger does the same :)
Thanks Twanna!
i just love the fact she is giving……. so be pleased for the winner x London loves you babes x
Jennifer: Thanks for acknowledging that. I appreciate it!
Tony: Thank you. And, I love London!!! :)