Winner of PDC HDD

I'm proud to announce the lucky winner of our PDC 2008 HDD packed with Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2 and various SDKs is Tsumana.

For those interested in how we picked the winner, I asked a friend to pick a number between 1 and 513 and he came up with 383 which was Tsumana's comment.

Congratulations Tsumana! I will be contacting you shortly to arrange shipping to your country.

If you missed our PDC coverage please check out our PDC section.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Reminder Commander 3

Next Story

Activision cleans up at Golden Joystick Awards

59 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Hey all,

Thanks for the kind words and even all the other words.

I read all the replies and just wanted to say that there are reasons for my inactivity although I don't think I need to go into them. I've been reading the news here for a long time and don't venture into the forums much as you can tell. Sometimes I'm reading the front page and don't even notice I'm not logged in.
So for any of you that feel slighted because of my post count then I'm sorry you feel that way. I can't really say much else on the subject without coming off as being patronising, I think.

And yes, I'll post a bunch of screens and do my best to write a review for the people who asked.

I'm glad you're able to justify it at least! Makes me feel better than knowing some 1 post wonder ran off with the copy never to be seen again

Tsumana:

Last Seen: 30th October 2008 - 12:56

How long does he/she have before it gets taken back and someone else is picked?

Just heard on keznews that the PDC build has been leaked already, the one demoed that wasn't meant to be distributed. Ah well nothing changes I suppose.

thealexweb said,
Just heard on keznews that the PDC build has been leaked already, the one demoed that wasn't meant to be distributed. Ah well nothing changes I suppose.

Where? The one guy who did have it said "I'd be fired if I leaked the build."

I agree with others on it being strange that the more you spammed the thread the better your chances are, but that didn't come into play here. The winner was someone who posted once and only posted 50 times in 5 years. While some of you may consider him an inactive member I highly doubt that is the case. I sometimes go for long periods of time without making a post and in the beginning I was a lurker for about a year before I even registered. There are many, many people who register and rarely post but the majority of them visit the front page for news on a regular basis. Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Congrats Tsumana!! I hope you enjoy playing with your new toys!!

I'd be ****ed if it was a one post wonder. Even more so there should be atleast a 100post min to win anything though....

Congrats to the winner though.

And people that have been active, and people that have more than 100 posts within 1 minutes..... Yeah, the criteria can be very narcy. How do you decide something like that

so the more posts u put up on events like this, the better ur chance is to win? So if i post 10 times, my chances get better? jw for next time

Raa said,
According to the way he picked, yes apparently!

This was really a very poor way to select, and heavily weights in favor of the frequent posters in the thread.

As a Vet, I was ineligible. As a Linux user, Windows doesn't interest me. But the selection method MUST be changed. And a person guessing a "random" number in a range is not very random at all, and is also weighted away from the start and end points.

I entirely agree Mark, but unfortunately it doesn't look likely now, or in the future it seems.

(You know that the same rules will apply to the Neowin competition?)

Actually, it took me a while to find the thread in question. Since only whole numbers were assumed to be picked, does that mean someone who posted, but did so as a reply would have found their post unknowingly (and unintentionally) ineligible for selection? No one was going to guess #5.1

markjensen said,
Actually, it took me a while to find the thread in question. Since only whole numbers were assumed to be picked, does that mean someone who posted, but did so as a reply would have found their post unknowingly (and unintentionally) ineligible for selection? No one was going to guess #5.1

for this giveaway http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...c=688430&st=960 do you think the same logic to pick the winners will be used? should i go in there and post as much as i can? wouldnt it have been better if neowin develops an online applicatin where somsone can submit their username and only verification needed would be to not allow duplicate names. save it on a database and then neowin admins can randomly pick a username? idk, just a quick thought. i like how neowin gives things away, but there isnt really a fair way and any rules as far as i know. can i post more than once? will replies like 5.1 ever work? people who we know have 2 usernames, and submit with both, can we appeal it when they win?

Also, i might not agree on how the winner was picked, but still, congrats to Tsumana.

That's all well and good, but that doesn't address people with 1 post wonders, or people that have posted very rarely over a long period of time (freeloading). IMO, these sorts of people are just in it for a free ride, it'd be fairer on the Neowin community if it went to a long-standing contributing member, or even a new one that's really active!

If a child comment would have been picked up then it would have been selected randomly from the parent and child comments of that particular value, like #16 here. If someone who had never posted and only registered that day had signed up then we may have re-considered but that didn't happen thankfully. Either way it's still a random winner, the method used was a lack of order and one that could not have been predicted therefore making it random.

creamhackered said,
If a child comment would have been picked up then it would have been selected randomly from the parent and child comments of that particular value, like #16 here. If someone who had never posted and only registered that day had signed up then we may have re-considered but that didn't happen thankfully. Either way it's still a random winner, the method used was a lack of order and one that could not have been predicted therefore making it random.

The child selection method is flawed. A child post (or a parent that has been replied-to) are less likely to be selected, since they had to go through an additional random selection.

Statistically, this selection method is very poor and not all posters had the same probability. I think that Neowin might want to use a more fairly distributed method to prize selection in the future.

markjensen said,
Statistically, this selection method is very poor and not all posters had the same probability. I think that Neowin might want to use a more fairly distributed method to prize selection in the future.


this is exactly the point i want to bring up. maybe the neowin admins, and mods and vets should have a simple chat about what would be a better method next time that makes it 100% fair for everyone in the community.

I also want to bring up that Raa said that people that post very rarely should not be able to win. I visit neowin every day, read the topics that grab my attention by their title and make sure to cover the news in the front page. I dont post much as u can see, 5 years and under 1000 posts. i have always liked to think of myself as a very very small part of this community. i dont think that posting rarely should be a disqualification.

s0nic69 said,
... i dont think that posting rarely should be a disqualification.

I don't either. I never mentioned post count, or membership sign-up date as a matter for consideration. I like Neowin's openness and community focus

I'm sorry guys, I DO think it should count. Why should we - as the active community - support some one post wonder, or rarely active person thats just along for a free ride?

5 years under 1000 posts? Thats not inactive IMO. 5 years and 50 posts? Yeah, that's getting a bit low.

I think it's worth revising at the least. I'm not saying a "hard rule" should apply.

See comment #37 below. Point proven? Maybe.