7 Mistakes Most Competitions Make (And How to Avoid Them)

Competitions, regardless of scale or subject matter, are valuable platforms for promoting excellence, encouraging growth, and identifying talent. Whether they involve academic pursuits, creative arts, or performance-based disciplines, competitions can deliver motivation, exposure, and progress. However, many organisers encounter recurring challenges that compromise the fairness, effectiveness, and overall experience of these contests.

This article identifies seven common mistakes found in many types of competitions and provides practical guidance on how to avoid or mitigate these pitfalls. Addressing these issues can help ensure a more transparent, equitable, and beneficial competitive experience for participants and organisers alike.

1. Unclear or Incomplete Rules

Well-defined rules are the foundation of every successful competition. Ambiguities in eligibility, assessment criteria, timelines, or judging procedures frequently lead to confusion, disputes, and dissatisfaction among participants and judges.

Lack of clarity: Vague descriptions such as “entries must be of high quality” leave too much interpretation to organisers and participants alike.
Missing components: Important details like the time limits, submission format, eligibility restrictions, or disqualification conditions are sometimes omitted entirely.

How to avoid this mistake:

Use neutral and precise language for rules.
Clearly state entry criteria, deadlines, and judging standards.
Provide a FAQ or guideline document to address common questions.
Invite a few sample participants or adjudicators to read the rules before the competition goes live — their feedback may reveal gaps or misunderstandings.

2. Inconsistent or Untrained Judging

Many competitions rely on volunteer judges or external assessors, some of whom may not be thoroughly familiar with the subject matter or specific scoring protocols. When judges apply different standards or interpret guidelines erratically, the credibility of the competition suffers.

Inconsistencies may arise due to:

A lack of calibration between judges.
The use of overly subjective or open-ended criteria.
Insufficient instruction on how to apply point systems consistently.

How to avoid this mistake:

Offer training sessions or calibration meetings before the judging begins.
Use defined rubrics with concrete scoring categories, such as “pronunciation accuracy” or “creative interpretation”.
Encourage judges to provide written summaries or numeric rationale for their scores — this also helps participants understand their results.

3. Poor Communication with Participants

Competitions often demand multiple stages—registrations, qualifiers, deadlines, and feedback cycles. Communication lapses at any step can lead to lower participation, rules being misunderstood, or frustration.

Delayed updates: Participants may find out about time changes or result announcements too late.
Unanswered queries: Lack of a designated contact point or delayed replies can discourage engagement or discourage future participation.

How to avoid this mistake:

Create a single, central communication channel — preferably email, website portal, or messaging system.
Use automated reminders for deadlines, round progression, or result notifications.
Keep the language professional, courteous, and timely. Even generic messages are better than silence.

4. Lack of Accessibility or Inclusivity

Competitions frequently fail to account for participants with diverse backgrounds or needs. This can manifest as physical inaccessibility, language barriers, or digital limitations.

Limited format support: Paper-only or in-person-only submissions may disadvantage remote participants or those with different accessibility needs.
Language bias: Using region-specific terminology, cultural references, or limited translation support can create an uneven playing field.

How to avoid this mistake:

Offer a remote option if feasible, and support screen-reader friendly or mobile-responsive resources.
Design assessment criteria that are inclusive and universal.
Translate core instructions into the main languages used by your participant base.
Allow for reasonable accommodations, such as time extensions or alternative submission methods, when justified.

5. Overcomplicated Scoring Systems

A detailed scoring structure is crucial for fair evaluation. However, overly complex or cumbersome systems can confuse both judges and participants, leading to ineffective judging or misinterpreted results.

Too many categories: Having ten or more categories with overlapping themes can dilute objectivity.
Non-linear scoring: Weighting systems or tie-breaking mechanisms that aren’t well explained can complicate final rankings.

How to avoid this mistake:

Limit the judging rubric to 3–5 core categories, each with clearly defined benchmarks.
Use percentage weighting or a scoring scale common to your field, and ensure it is communicated clearly in the rules.
Use automated tools or software to apply complex scoring algorithms if necessary — while making the core judgment method transparent.

6. No Feedback or Follow-Up

Many competitions end with the announcement of winners — and little else. As a result, participants miss the opportunity to learn, improve, or feel acknowledged, especially if they do not win.

In constructive learning environments (such as Quranic recitation, writing, or debating), effective feedback is not optional — it is essential to align the competition with its educational purpose.

How to avoid this mistake:

Encourage judges to include a short comment with each score, especially in early rounds.
If providing feedback to all participants is not feasible, share general observations about common strengths and areas for improvement in a public post-competition report.
Invite participants to request feedback voluntarily via email or Google Form submission.

7. Lack of Transparency and Accountability

Without transparent processes, a competition’s fairness may be questioned — leading to disputes, falling participation, and long-term reputational damage.

Opaque judging: When scores are not published or the judge panel remains anonymous, participants may feel outcomes are arbitrary.
No appeal mechanism: When an error occurs or a rule is misapplied, participants often have no recourse to challenge or clarify it.

How to avoid this mistake:

Publish scoring rubrics and the names or qualifications of judges (where appropriate and consented).
After results are announced, allow a limited time window for questions or formal appeals with clear procedures.
Use a shared database or timestamped system for score submission to ensure an audit trail.

Conclusion

Running a competition is a complex undertaking, but avoiding these seven common mistakes can lead to smoother execution, greater fairness, and a better experience for everyone involved. Setting clear rules, training judges properly, communicating well, and prioritising transparency will foster trust and effectiveness.

Ultimately, a well-organised competition encourages participation, promotes skill development, and upholds the standards of the domain it represents.

If you need help with your Quran competition platform or marking tools, email info@qurancompetitions.tech.