The " competitors " are, in a way, the black beast of our sector. These participant profiles are deviant and do not focus on the brand's activity or its news to engage a lasting relationship. These profiles manifest themselves through clearly identifiable behaviours :
- participation is only for the purpose of winning the coveted prize.
- their participation is regularly validated from temporary or false email addresses.
- these participants spend most of their day spamming games in order to win prizes.
- These participants sometimes even generate an unconscionable number of emails to increase their luck and thus affect your database by generating unqualified contacts.
Beware, today there are discussion groups on social networks, as well as forums that feed their content with the release of each new contest updated. The members of these groups exchange the key answers of these games to access the draw and thus win the prizes more easily. Within the framework of a winning instant, some are even likely to share screenshots of the "Won" pages in order to divert the logic of the winning instant. These are cases of figures to which we have to go to attest that a cheating participant is in no way eligible for the prize.
Thus we sensitize all the community managers in charge of the relation with the Internet users on your online media to be sensitive to this degree of abuse and to moderate these participants by bringing formal proofs that a gain cannot be considered as acquired in certain cases.
How do we do it? Thanks to the platform which attests in the "Statistics" tab to a formally identified list of winners. In the event that a participant claims his or her prize with a screenshot of a "Won" page, remember to check that the participant's name is correctly displayed in the official list of winners. If it does not, inform the participant that their entry does not represent an official win and that they are welcome to try again. Screenshots are usually screenshots shared between users on these types of chat groups to fake brands and attempt to claim a prize without an official win.
In response to this rise in fraudulent behavior, we have implemented a range of features that allow everyone to detect, limit and restrict access to games by these participants.
In the general page of your project, two options will allow you to limit the pace and the clubbing of your project by isolated contestants.
Limit the number of attempts with the anti-spam filter.
By enabling this filter, you allow Kimple to detect suspicious behavior from your participants that will generate as many entries from a single ip address. You set a limit on the number of attempts you want to make. Generally, we recommend a maximum threshold of 30 or even 40 attempts in order to leave an acceptable margin of maneuver to engage the participant in the operation, especially if it is an animated game, the recurrence of games being a must in the context of these games where replay is regular. Therefore, by activating and configuring this option, each participant who exceeds the threshold defined in the platform, will be automatically identified in your export of participants. A column is specially provided to categorize and identify suspicious participants. An index informs you that this or that participant is therefore suspicious: index 0 attests that a participant is not suspicious, index 1 alerts you that this particular participant is suspicious.
Detecting cheaters by their game score.
Kimple has based all its logic on the score achieved during a game that engages a points challenge. Thus for each mechanic and its mode of operation, we are able to establish a list of maximum scores that cannot be exceeded naturally without fraudulent behavior on your operation. Indeed, to date, some participants with technical skills are able to hijack the general configuration of a game to affect the scoring system and thus generate additional or supplementary points data, outside the limit provided by the solution. This is why in some cases, in the general ranking, some of our customers isolate higher scores, resulting from a suspicious behavior of the participant. The Kimple solution is therefore able to identify these erroneous scores and to warn each customer about a cheating attitude of such or such participant. A clue informs you that this or that participant is therefore suspicious: clue 0 attests that a participant is not suspicious, clue 1 alerts you that this particular participant is suspicious and has therefore cheated during the game. Be careful, make sure that your contest rules include specific conditions to disqualify these cheaters and thus make them ineligible for a prize distributed during your contest.
Secure your entry form by filtering emails.
The entry form remains the gateway to your contest, to qualify and retrieve the most qualified database it is. In this impulse of fight against the contesters, we have foreseen an additional security to filter the false email addresses which would be likely to be filled in the form to reach the game. Thus, by activating the option below, you automatically exclude from your database, temporary email addresses that are ephemeral and do not constitute a qualified contact for your database. Thus, all emails containing the root @yopmail, @jetable.org or other will not be taken into account in your participant export. Kimple now has a complete list of email domains that can alter the quality of your database. This feature will allow you to further secure your operation and engage an audience that has a clear interest in your brand.