•   about 10 years ago

How are solutions judged?

Looking at the submissions, some are outrageous but some do have strong merits. The most interesting to me are the ones with a more secure or authentic caller ID or elimination of caller ID spoofing. Question is, while the concept may be good, how will the solution be judged if without proof of concept? Will there be a batch of solutions selected for proof of concept and is eliminated as the concept can not be proven or implemented as claimed? I think the best and fairest model would be to select all solutions that have a good working concept first. The second stage would be to ask the submittors of those concept to submit a more detailed follow-up of their submission to show how it actually works, and if there were questions about the submission, to be answered here as well. This should help narrow down to the winning solution. The last stage is a prototype and the best solution wins. For $50,000, this isn't much to ask of the submittors, after all, what if the concept works on paper but without testing and implementation, doesn't work at all in the real world? Anybody disagree?


  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Hello Tony, The third paragraph in the Criteria Details under the heading Does it Work Weighted at 50 % states "What evidence do you already have to support your idea"? (Key word,,,, "already",,,, ) The way I read that is if the solution already has been proven to work it will get a larger score in this area than one that is still only theory. I haven't read or heard anywhere of a elimination system such as you describe (I very well could be wrong). In addition, there are only a very few solutions that have claimed that there is concrete proof that they do work. There are many that are still on the "drawing board" but most are still in the conceptual stage. It would be very interesting to know how the 50% weight is factored on these solutions that only exist in someone's mind. For what it's worth, I agree with you 100%. You bring up some very interesting points, Thanks.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Please be aware that not all submissions have been made public...many are still waiting to be approved. I submitted a solution on the 16th of January and it is still pending.

    Also, the submission gallery sort function does not work very well. I try to search by 'recent' and get more of a random return of items vs. their real order. This forces me to go through the entire 469 (and counting) submissions each time to be sure I don't miss one for review. (this seems like a problem with the website)

    Your interest in the secure caller-ID or eliminating spoofing submissions judging method is pretty easy. Those types of submissions will fail several of the judging criteria items. For example: Getting every single phone company to install new hardware and develop a new caller-ID system would NOT be easy to roll out. If you add in the difficulty in passing legislation to force them to do it the solution gets even worse.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Says who they need to install a new caller-ID system? The beauty of my solution uses existing technology. Since the submission is closed, I guess I can give away a little clue. They merely need to add more digits to the caller ID to enhance it as if it were a private key. Existing hardware will just disregard this extra set of numbers.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Adding more digits to caller-ID does not use existing hardware and/or technology. Each provider would still need to implement the new system with new hardware and they would all have to agree on how to implement it. How long did it take for the 1st caller-id system to get rolled out? It would be far more difficult to introduce a new standard/system today.

  •   •   about 10 years ago

    Are you sure about that? As I recall, some years back, my number used to be just 7 digits long. Dialing the area code wasn't necessary until the introduction of cell phones, which doubled the capacity of phone systems and required the new digits. At worst, I still think there's a minimal impact.

Comments are closed.