Award Force: Public Voting, Entries and Platform Mechanics
Award Force is an awards-management platform built by Award Force Pty Ltd for running award programs, contests and public voting. Entrants submit through the platform, and registered participants cast their picks under limits the organiser sets. Unregistered public voting is not permitted, per-entry totals are hidden by default, and the vendor's documentation describes bot detection, caps on how often a user can support an entry, and an API for managing awards, competitions, scholarships and recognition programs.
Prepared by ContestsOnline editorial desk — Revised
Public participation starts with registration
Award Force is built for award programs run by organisations, and its participation model reflects that setting. The vendor states plainly that unregistered public voting is no longer permitted: a person must hold an account on the award's own site before casting anything. That single rule separates the platform from open poll tools, where anyone with a link can click without signing in. For an organiser it means the audience has to be brought in deliberately, through a login step, before the counting starts.
The organiser also controls the calendar. The platform's configuration lets an organiser set the start and end dates for the voting period, so the window opens and closes on the schedule the program needs rather than staying open indefinitely.
- Registration is required before anyone can take part, because unregistered public voting is no longer permitted on the platform.
- The organiser sets the dates the period starts and ends, following the program's own schedule.
- Caps on support and visibility are configured per award, not fixed by the vendor.
Limits, resets and what participants see
The counting rules are the organiser's to set. An organiser can limit how much support a user gives across all entries, and can also limit what a user spends in each category. The maximum can be set to one pick per user per entry, or the organiser can allow multiple picks per entry up to the cap. Nothing in the configuration forces a one-pick rule; it is a choice, and the zero-tolerance wording many programs publish rests on it.
Two limits work together: the total across entries and the per-category allowance. A program with five categories can give each participant a small allowance per category while the global cap keeps the overall number fixed, which balances participation against fatigue.
Visibility is the third dial. Whether the running tally for each entry is public or private is an organiser setting, and the default keeps it private. A program that wants suspense leaves the counts hidden; one that wants momentum turns them on and lets the gallery carry the race.
- Reset daily and reset weekly rules exist, and both follow the time zone associated with the account.
- The organiser can allow the total for each entry to be visible to participants, or keep it secret.
- Hiding totals is the default on the platform, though the setting can be changed.
Fraudulent casting and what the system checks
Award Force treats fraudulent participation in public awards programs as a named problem, not an afterthought. Its guidance describes stuffing through automated bots, multiple-account casting and cross-platform activity as forms the problem takes, alongside exploitation of technical weaknesses, coercion or monetary compensation. The same material states that the platform carries bot detection and blocking to prevent automated or scripted registration and casting.
What happens afterwards is the organiser's call, not an automatic mechanism. The vendor advises organisers to declare a zero-tolerance policy and to state in the terms and conditions whether fraudulent picks will be revoked or the entrant who received them disqualified. Nothing in that guidance says the penalties apply to every contest on their own; the program's published terms carry them.
- A zero-tolerance statement, written into the program's terms and conditions.
- The stated consequence: revocation of fraudulent picks or disqualification of the entrant who received them.
- The forms the terms name, such as stuffing through automated bots or multiple accounts.
Sharing a direct link to one entry
Entrants often want a link they can send to their own audience, and the vendor confirms the mechanic exists. Each entry has a unique identifier that can be appended to the end of the public voting page address for direct linking. The link still lands on the platform's gallery, so registration and the organiser's caps apply exactly as they would for someone browsing. A share link widens reach; it does not loosen the rules.
Direct linking does not change who may take part. The recipient still needs a registered account, still meets the same caps, and still sees whatever visibility the organiser chose for the tally. What the link changes is friction: one click takes a supporter from an entrant's message to the right entry, instead of scrolling a gallery.
What the Award Force API is for
The API exists for teams that need the platform to talk to other systems. Its documentation says the Award Force API enables a team to programmatically manage awards, competitions, scholarships and recognition programs, which puts the whole program lifecycle behind calls rather than clicks.
In practice that means an organisation with an existing membership database can push entries in and pull results out without retyping anything, and judging assignments can be driven by the same workflow that manages the entries themselves.
- Create and manage entries and submissions.
- Automate judging workflows and assignments.
- Process entry fees and payments.
- Generate reports and analytics.
Plans, capacity and account basics
The vendor sells annual plans rather than a free tier, and its material here describes capacity more than cost. The Growth plan is described with up to ten thousand annual entries and a file upload limit, and the vendor's FAQ says the Growth and Pro plans support up to ten thousand entries. The same FAQ states there is no minimum number of entries required to use the platform, so a small program is not locked out.
Because the platform is sold on annual plans, a pricing check belongs in the planning stage, and the FAQ material is where capacity questions are answered. No figure in that material includes a price, so the sensible order is capacity first and commercial terms second, read on the vendor's current plan descriptions.
Where the help material lives
Day-to-day questions about the platform land in two places: the vendor's support guides and its FAQ. The support guide to the voting configuration is where the mechanics above are documented, and the FAQ answers capacity questions such as entry minimums and plan limits. For anything the guides do not cover, the organiser's own account is the source of truth, since settings can differ by plan.
| Setting | What the organiser decides |
|---|---|
| Support cap | Across all entries, per category, or one pick per entry |
| Resets | Daily or weekly, on the account's time zone |
| Entry totals | Visible to participants or kept secret; hidden by default |
| Voting period | Start and end dates set by the organiser |
| Fraud penalties | Declared in the program's own terms, not automatic |
Procedure
-
Set the window
Open the configuration and set the dates the period starts and ends. Both reset rules and the calendar follow the time zone associated with the account, so check it before the program opens.
-
Require registration
Leave unregistered public participation off, as the platform no longer permits it. Every participant needs an account on the award's site before their support counts.
-
Cap the picks
Decide how much support a user can give across all entries, how much in each category, and whether one pick per entry is the rule or multiple picks are allowed up to the maximum.
-
Choose what is visible
Decide whether participants can see the total for each entry. Totals are hidden by default, and the setting can be changed if the program wants a live scoreboard.
-
Publish the fraud policy
Write into the terms what happens to fraudulent picks: whether they are revoked, or the entrant who benefited is disqualified. The platform blocks automated and scripted registration and casting, but the penalties are the organiser's to declare.
Readers ask
Can the public vote?
Yes, but only registered participants. Award Force no longer permits unregistered public voting, so anyone who wants to take part must create an account on the award's site first. The organiser decides when the period opens and closes, and can cap how often each participant casts. Because totals per entry are hidden by default, participants cannot see how an entry is doing unless the organiser changes that setting.
Can we share a direct link to an entry for public voting?
Yes. Each entry has a unique identifier that can be appended to the end of the public voting page address for direct linking, so a share link can point straight at one entry. The link still lands on the platform's own page, which means registration and the organiser's caps apply exactly as they would for someone browsing the gallery.
What can I use the Award Force API for?
The Award Force API lets a team programmatically manage awards, competitions, scholarships and recognition programs. Its documentation lists four jobs: create and manage entries and submissions, automate judging workflows and assignments, process entry fees and payments, and generate reports and analytics. An organisation with an existing membership database can push entries in and pull results out without retyping anything.
Can I use Award Force on a tablet or mobile device?
Yes, the platform is delivered through a browser, so entrants, judges and participants can reach it from a tablet or a phone as well as a desktop. Nothing in the vendor's guides names a separate mobile app or a device restriction; the account, the entries and the public gallery behave the same whichever screen opens them. An organiser running an event should still test the gallery on the devices their audience actually carries.
Can Award Force facilitate a nominator/nominee program?
Yes. The platform is designed for award programs where one party nominates another, which is the nominator/nominee pattern many industry and recognition awards follow. A nominator submits a nominee through the entry flow, and the program's own settings decide what the nominee sees and does next. The vendor's material describes the platform in terms of awards, competitions, scholarships and recognition programs, all of which commonly run on that structure.
Is live judging possible?
Yes, judging is a core part of the platform, and the API can automate judging workflows and assignments, which is what a live session needs. A panel working through entries in real time works from the same entries and criteria as an offline round; the vendor's material treats judging as a workflow the organiser configures rather than a fixed schedule. How a particular program stages its rounds is set in that program's own configuration.
What happens to votes detected as fraudulent?
Whatever the program's own terms say. Award Force advises organisers to declare a zero-tolerance policy and to state whether fraudulent picks are revoked or the entrant who received them is disqualified. Its guidance treats stuffing through automated bots and multiple-account casting as the forms this takes; the penalties rest in the published terms, not in an automatic rule.
Notes and sources
- support.awardforce.com. support.awardforce.com/hc/en-us/articles/208083496-Voting-configuration.
- support.awardforce.com. support.awardforce.com/hc/en-us/articles/208083496-Voting-configuration.
- support.awardforce.com. support.awardforce.com/hc/en-us/articles/208083496-Voting-configuration.
- awardforce.com. awardforce.com/blog/articles/how-to-avoid-fraudulent-voting-in-public-awards-programs/.
- support.awardforce.com. support.awardforce.com/hc/en-us/articles/11440766569231-How-can-I-avoid-fraud-in-public-access-judging.
This page cannot tell an organiser what Award Force costs today, because no price appears in the material it was written from. It does not explain how to cast more than once, how to use automated tools or how to get past detection; those topics are out of scope. The vendor's rules change, so an organiser should confirm settings in the account dashboard before a program opens. No page on this site gives legal advice, and none is offered here.
Woobox's user terms require entrants to agree to the organiser's official rules, so any limit on bought or incentivised votes depends on the particular contest. Walmart's Associate Talent Search rules prohibit paying for votes and let Walmart void fraudulent votes or disqualify the entrant. The platform's terms and the organiser's rules are two documents, and a disqualification is decided under the second.
Woobox lists three warning signs of bought votes: many votes from one IP address, votes from people in different countries and regular voting intervals. Award Force says its platform detects and blocks automated or scripted voting and rate-limits rapid voting. Ordinary participation is uneven in time and independent in origin, so it shows none of those patterns; this describes how checks read a count and is not a method for passing one.
In the United States, the FTC says a sweepstakes cannot require a purchase to enter, and California says a sweepstakes must offer a way to enter without cost. Those rules concern sweepstakes entry, not votes: whether a contest allows paid votes is written in its own rules, and ViralSweep even lets organisers configure Pay to Vote. Contests whose rules bar outside votes are refused, and so are political ballots.
Once voting closes, a refund applies where votes ordered for a contest never appear in the count the contest itself displays. ViralSweep says its protections may silently flag and block a vote, and Woobox says votes from IP addresses it has flagged as fraudulent do not count even when the voter appears to have succeeded, so the displayed count is the test. An organiser's ruling or a disqualification is never refunded, and neither is an account ban such as the permanent one Gleam says a breach of its terms may bring.