Public access reviewing is a powerful way to drive engagement. It allows communities to participate and feel invested in outcomes. However, public access is not always the most accurate way to determine winners. Competition can motivate quality improvement, but it can also encourage attempts to manipulate results.
Set clear expectations
One of the most effective ways to prevent fraud is communication. Clearly explain:
- What behaviour is considered fraudulent
- That fraudulent behaviour is not tolerated
- That penalties may include disqualification
Use content blocks throughout the reviewing area to explain fair practices. This helps deter misuse and increases trust in your program.
Platform safeguards
Good Grants includes safeguards to help reduce abuse, including:
- Registration using a unique and verified email address
- Bot detection and blocking
- Rate limiting where multiple votes are allowed
- Detailed vote and score logging for audits
Review results before announcing winners
Before finalising results, review your data carefully. Look for unusual patterns or anomalies.
For programs using voting:
- The Votes + comments export includes voter IP addresses
- This can help identify suspicious behaviour
To learn more, see Ultimate guide to exports.
Understand the limits of public access
The only way to guarantee one vote per person is through digital identity verification. This can be intrusive and may reduce participation. For many programs, this trade-off is not desirable. Public access reviewing should balance engagement with risk tolerance.
Get help if needed
If you suspect fraudulent activity, contact the client success team! They can help investigate and advise on next steps.