I used to believe that having a novel idea was enough to win a hackathon.
Build something nobody has thought of. Solve a problem in a way nobody has tried. Bring something genuinely different to the table, and surely the judges will recognize the effort.
Turns out, it isn't that simple.
The more I think about hackathons and project competitions, the more I question two things: Should existing projects be allowed to compete as new ideas? And shouldn't judges disclose their biases when evaluating projects?
Because if the competition isn't designed to reward innovation fairly, what exactly are we competing for?
1. Existing Projects Shouldn't Get a Free Pass
Let's talk about a frustrating scenario.
You spend days brainstorming, researching, building, and refining an idea. You take risks because you're trying to solve a problem differently. Meanwhile, someone presents a project they've already built, perhaps with an established user base, polished UI, and months of development behind it.
Both projects enter the same competition.
On paper, that might sound fair. After all, both teams have built something useful. But are they really competing on equal terms?
A competition that claims to reward innovation should distinguish between building something new and showcasing something that already exists.
I'm not saying existing projects have no value. Quite the opposite. An existing project might solve a real problem better than a completely new idea ever could.
But if the goal is to encourage fresh thinking, then the rules should reflect that goal.
A project that existed before the competition shouldn't automatically qualify as an original submission simply because its creators have made a few improvements or added a new feature.
There should be clear eligibility criteria:
- Projects must disclose whether development started before the competition.
- Judges should distinguish between entirely new projects, substantial extensions, and existing products.
- If existing projects are allowed, they should compete in a separate category.
- Teams should be transparent about what they built during the competition and what already existed.
This isn't about punishing people for building early. It's about making sure everyone knows what game they're playing.
2. Innovation Is More Than a Fancy Presentation
Here's another uncomfortable truth: sometimes, the most novel idea doesn't win.
You might build something technically ambitious, solve an overlooked problem, or explore an approach that nobody else considered.
But another team might win because its project has a more polished presentation, a more familiar use case, or a concept that immediately appeals to the judges.
Of course, execution matters. A great idea that never works is still an unfinished idea. Communication matters, too. Judges can't evaluate something they don't understand.
But there's a difference between rewarding good execution and overlooking innovation because it doesn't fit an evaluator's preferences.
Imagine two projects.
One addresses a common problem using a familiar approach. It's easy to understand, easy to demonstrate, and easy to evaluate.
The other tackles an overlooked problem using an unconventional approach. It might be riskier, harder to explain, and less immediately impressive, but it introduces a genuinely different perspective.
If the first project wins, that doesn't automatically mean the judges were wrong. Perhaps its execution was substantially better.
However, if novelty is a stated judging criterion, the second project deserves to be evaluated on that basis rather than dismissed because the judges don't personally connect with the idea.
A judging rubric should reward what the competition claims to value, not merely what the judges happen to like.
3. Judges Have Biases. The Problem Is Pretending They Don't.
Let's be realistic.
Judges are human beings. They have professional backgrounds, personal interests, technical preferences, and preconceived notions about which problems are worth solving.
A judge with a background in AI might find an AI-powered project more exciting than a clever, lightweight solution that doesn't use machine learning.
Someone working in enterprise software might prefer a business-oriented product over a project designed for a small, underserved community.
A judge who values immediate commercial potential might overlook an experimental project with greater long-term potential.
None of this necessarily makes someone a bad judge.
The problem begins when subjective preferences influence the outcome without being acknowledged.
If judges have strong preferences about particular technologies, industries, or types of ideas, those preferences should be disclosed wherever they could materially affect the evaluation.
Even better, competitions should use multiple judges with different backgrounds, publish their scoring criteria, and require them to explain their decisions against those criteria.
A judge doesn't have to love your idea to evaluate it fairly.
They do, however, have a responsibility to distinguish between "I don't like this idea" and "This idea doesn't meet the competition's criteria."
Those are two very different judgments.
4. If Novelty Matters, Put a Number on It
One way to address this problem is surprisingly simple: make originality an explicit, measurable part of the judging process.
For example, a competition could evaluate projects using the following rubric:
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Originality and innovation | 30% |
| Technical execution | 25% |
| Problem relevance and impact | 20% |
| Feasibility and scalability | 15% |
| Presentation and demonstration | 10% |
These percentages are just an example, not a universal formula. Different competitions should use different weights depending on their goals.
A competition focused on entrepreneurship might prioritize market validation. A research competition might emphasize novelty and technical depth. A rapid prototyping event might reward execution within the allotted time.
The important part is that the criteria should be announced before the competition, applied consistently, and supported by meaningful feedback.
If originality accounts for 30% of the score, judges should explain why a project received its originality score.
If an existing project is eligible, the rules should clarify how its prior development affects the evaluation.
And if novelty isn't important to the competition, organizers should say so instead of advertising innovation as a central objective.
You can't promise people a competition about innovation and then leave the meaning of innovation entirely to individual interpretation.
5. The Counterargument: Isn't Execution More Important Than Novelty?
Absolutely. And this is where the discussion gets interesting.
Not every problem needs a revolutionary solution.
Sometimes, an existing approach works perfectly well, and the real challenge is making it cheaper, faster, more accessible, or easier to use.
A project doesn't have to be completely original to be valuable. In fact, many successful products build on existing ideas and improve them.
Similarly, an established project might demonstrate exceptional engineering, real-world adoption, and a level of reliability that a weekend prototype cannot match.
Those achievements deserve recognition.
But here's the distinction: a project can be valuable without being eligible for every type of competition.
A startup pitch competition, a product showcase, and an innovation hackathon can have different eligibility requirements and judging priorities.
There's nothing inherently wrong with allowing existing projects to compete. The problem is allowing them to compete under rules that imply something different.
If the event rewards the best product, let the best product win.
If it rewards the best new idea, evaluate originality seriously.
If it rewards what teams can build in 24 or 48 hours, judge the progress made during those hours.
The criteria don't have to be the same. They just have to be clear.
6. What Losing Should Teach Us
There's a personal side to this, too.
When I believed that novel ideas could make you win, I approached competitions with a particular mindset: think differently, build something unusual, and the results will follow.
Now, I think the reality is more complicated.
An original idea can give you an advantage, but it doesn't guarantee recognition. Execution, communication, relevance, judging criteria, and subjective preferences can all influence the outcome.
That doesn't mean innovation is pointless.
It means we should stop treating competitions as perfectly objective systems where the best idea inevitably rises to the top.
Sometimes, you lose because your execution wasn't strong enough. Sometimes, your idea doesn't address the problem as effectively as you thought. Sometimes, another team simply does a better job.
And sometimes, the competition's incentives don't align with what you thought it was rewarding.
The challenge is figuring out which situation you're dealing with.
Instead of automatically assuming that a losing project was better, we should ask for specific feedback. Instead of automatically assuming that the judges were fair, we should examine whether the rules and scoring were transparent.
Both things can be true: your project might need improvement, and the competition might need better evaluation standards.
Final Thoughts: Fairness Starts With Transparency
I don't believe every competition should exclusively reward novel ideas. That would be an unnecessarily narrow definition of innovation.
I do believe competitions should be honest about what they reward.
If existing projects are allowed, disclose that upfront. If originality matters, evaluate it explicitly. If judges have conflicts of interest or strong preferences that could affect their decisions, establish safeguards against those preferences unfairly determining the outcome.
And if a project wins, there should be a clear explanation of why it won beyond the fact that the judges liked it.
Because the real issue isn't whether a completely new idea always deserves to win.
It doesn't.
The issue is whether participants can trust that they're being evaluated against the criteria they were promised.
I used to think novel ideas could make you win.
Now, I think a novel idea is only one part of the equation. The competition's rules, the quality of execution, and the fairness of the evaluation matter, too.
Innovation deserves a fair shot, not a guaranteed victory. But a fair shot requires transparent rules, consistent judging, and the courage to acknowledge bias.
That's my cold take.
Top comments (0)