Judgify: what the awards judging platform does, what it costs and how its voting works
Judgify is a cloud-based awards judging platform built for running awards, competitions, contests, nominations and judging programmes in one place. The vendor describes it as mobile-optimised software that manages submissions, public voting and judge scoring from a single dashboard. Its entry-level plan is free and caps each event at one hundred submissions, five categories and five-megabyte files. Paid tiers add capacity, and the vendor's help centre documents the voting, judging and submission settings.
Prepared by ContestsOnline editorial desk — Revised
What Judgify means and how the platform works
Judgify's help centre describes the product as a cloud-based awards judging system that lets organisers set up and manage awards and competitions from anywhere. The same help pages call it mobile-optimised awards management software that aims to make awards organisation simple, transparent and credible. In practice that means one platform handling entries, public voting and judge scoring. The vendor positions it for multiple contest types and diverse nomination types, from abstracts to grants, and describes the product as the complete platform for managing competitions, scoring teams and delivering real-time results.
For an organiser comparing platforms, the meaning is operational. Judgify is judging infrastructure, not a social giveaway tool. Submissions arrive through forms the organiser builds, judges score them in rounds, and public voting runs alongside a panel or in place of one. The vendor's own materials stress managing everything in one place rather than stitching separate tools together.
- Awards and competitions: set-up, submission intake and judging in one place.
- Public voting: an external audience votes under settings the organiser controls.
- Real-time results: the vendor describes scoring and results delivered as rounds complete.
Public voting: the settings an organiser controls
The vendor's public voting page gives organisers the levers. The organiser's published voting rule states whether each participant casts one vote or several, and a Maximum Selection setting caps how many votes one person can make. External voters sign in through Facebook, Twitter, Google or LinkedIn, or log in as anonymous users. A banner on the voting page can show the contest title, social sharing buttons, the voting duration with its start and end dates, or a countdown of days, hours and minutes left.
The public voting page can also show voting status, such as how many users have voted so far. Detailed totals live in a Voting Result screen reached through Manage Public Voting, per the vendor's help centre. Whether each nominee's running total is visible to the public is a different question, and the vendor's pages do not settle it; the organiser's settings decide what outside voters see.
- Maximum Selection: the cap on how many votes one person can make; one vote per account is not a universal rule on this platform.
- Repeat voting: the organiser's published rule decides whether each participant gets one vote or several.
- Login: social media accounts or an anonymous-user option for external voters.
- Banner: contest title, sharing buttons, the voting duration or a time-left countdown.
Pricing structure, the free plan and paid tiers
The vendor's pricing page lists a free Basic plan and paid tiers above it, plus an enterprise option. The free plan carries no onboarding and allows one hundred submissions per event, five categories and files up to five megabytes. Paid tiers add capacity and onboarding support. Their figures are published on the vendor's pricing page, and this reference describes the structure without restating the amounts. Organisers can also charge entry fees for submissions, with the platform taking its own share of what it collects.
Run the plan check before building. Match the event's expected submission volume, category count and file sizes to the caps. A photo-heavy contest with hundreds of entries will not fit the free plan's submission limit, while a small internal awards round can run on it indefinitely. Switching tiers mid-event is a worse experience than picking the right tier first.
- Free Basic plan: one hundred submissions per event, five categories, a five-megabyte file cap and no onboarding.
- Paid tiers: higher limits and onboarding support; the amounts sit on the vendor's pricing page.
- Entry fees: organisers can charge entrants, and the platform applies its own share to those fees.
What judges see: submission details and scoring
Judges work from their own login. After the organiser invites them, each judge opens the judging queue, where every entry's submitted files and details sit beside the scoring form. The judging invitation arrives by email, so a judge who cannot find it checks the spam folder and then asks the organiser to resend. Judges see what the entrant submitted, including files and descriptions; the organiser's settings decide how much of the wider round is visible to them.
Editing scores after the fact follows the same logic. A judging round opens and closes under the organiser's control, so a judge who has completed a round and wants to change a score raises it with the organiser, who can reopen the round or adjust the workflow. The vendor's help centre documents the round structure; the exact reopening steps sit there rather than on this page.
Comparing Judgify with alternatives
Comparisons should run feature by feature. Judgify sits on the judging side of the market: entry management, judge rounds and public voting in one platform. Neighbouring tools lean toward giveaways and social entry mechanics instead. When organisers compare alternatives, the checks that matter are concrete, and the list above is the working version of that comparison.
Organiser reviews of the platform exist, but this reference does not quote review scores, because the vendor's own documentation is the checkable record. Where a review contradicts the documentation, the documentation governs, since it describes the settings an organiser will actually find in the dashboard.
- Voting controls: can the organiser cap votes per person and write the repeat-vote rule into the contest terms?
- Judge workflow: rounds, score handling and how judges receive each entry.
- Plan caps: submission limits, file sizes and category counts on the free tier.
- Disqualification rules: what the organiser's published rules treat as vote manipulation.
Vote manipulation rules and disqualification
Judgify's published client terms do not state a vote-specific rule about incentivised or automated votes; they make use of the platform subject to its terms and applicable law. That silence matters. An organiser running a public vote on the platform writes the manipulation rules into the contest's own terms, because the platform's terms do not supply them.
Other organisers publish explicit rules. HK Parts voids automated votes, votes generated through scripts or bots, votes from false identities, vote exchanges, coordinated manipulation and other fraudulent methods in its United States contest rules. The same rules bar finalists from offering money, prizes, discounts or any other consideration in exchange for votes. The United Kingdom's National Social Media Awards names automated voting software among its forms of vote manipulation and reserves the right to disqualify any nominee, finalist or winner at any stage for breaching its rules.
Judgify's own contest advice points the same way. The vendor suggests organisers can add an incentive to vote on all submissions alongside a limited quantity of votes per person, which is advice for running a contest, not a blanket permission written into its terms. Whatever incentive an organiser offers belongs in the published rules before launch.
Where the vendor's documentation stops
Several questions the vendor's pages do not settle. They do not state a one-vote-per-account rule; Maximum Selection is an organiser setting, not a universal one. They do not establish that each nominee's running total is publicly visible; only the aggregate voting status and the organiser-facing result screen are documented. Closing dates belong to the organiser too, set per award in the banner and the voting duration, with no platform-wide schedule printed anywhere.
What an organiser can actually see is the voting status count, the Voting Result screen under Manage Public Voting, and whatever the chosen settings expose to the public. Detection of manipulated votes is therefore the organiser's job on this platform: the settings, the status counts and the published rules are the instruments, and the rules supply the grounds for disqualification when the numbers look wrong.
| Setting | What the vendor publishes |
|---|---|
| Votes per person | Maximum Selection caps how many votes one person can make; the organiser chooses the number. |
| Repeat voting | The organiser's published rule decides whether each participant casts one vote or several. |
| Voter login | Social media login through Facebook, Twitter, Google and LinkedIn, plus an anonymous-user option. |
| Public banner | Contest title, social sharing buttons, the voting duration or a countdown of time left. |
| Results | The Voting Result screen under Manage Public Voting holds totals and voting status. |
Procedure
-
Create the organiser account
Sign up on the vendor's site and choose the plan that fits the event's submission volume. The free Basic plan covers small rounds; larger events need a paid tier before entries start arriving.
-
Build the entry forms
Set the categories, submission fields and file limits. Check the plan's caps first: the free tier allows one hundred submissions per event, five categories and files up to five megabytes.
-
Configure public voting
Write the voting rules, including whether each participant gets one vote or several, then set Maximum Selection and pick the login methods: social media accounts or anonymous access. Publish the banner with the voting window or a countdown.
-
Invite the judges
Send judging invitations by email and confirm that each judge can open the entries. A judge who cannot find the invitation checks the spam folder first, then asks the organiser to resend it.
-
Run the round and read results
Open the judging round, monitor the voting status count, and read the totals in the Voting Result screen under Manage Public Voting. Handle draft submissions and error reports before the window closes.
Readers ask
How do I delete a particular submission?
Submissions are deleted from the entry list in the organiser dashboard, where each entry carries its own management options. Open the entry, choose the delete action and confirm. If the entry has already been scored, notify the assigned judges before removing it, so the round's totals reflect what each judge actually reviewed.
How can I edit my submission as it is saved in draft mode and I left it halfway?
A draft submission stays editable: reopen it from the dashboard, finish the form and the files, and submit it before the deadline. Nothing enters judging until the submission is complete. If the entry form refuses to save, check the file sizes against the plan's cap and re-upload anything that failed.
I am getting an error message when I am trying to submit my entry. Can you help?
An error message at submission usually points at a file over the plan's size limit or a required field left empty. The free plan caps files at five megabytes. Check the file sizes and the mandatory fields, then submit again. If the message repeats, report it to the contest organiser or the vendor's help centre with the exact wording of the error.
What happens when a judge can't seem to locate the judging invitation email?
The judge checks the spam folder first, then asks the organiser to resend the invitation. The organiser confirms the email address on the judge's record and sends it again from the judge management area. Access depends on that invitation, so a wrong address blocks the whole round.
How can judges see Submission details?
Judges open each entry from their judging queue, where the submitted files, descriptions and category information sit beside the scoring form. What a judge sees is what the entrant submitted; the organiser's settings decide the rest of the round's visibility.
Can judges edit the scores after completing the judging round?
Score changes after a round closes depend on the organiser, who controls when rounds open and close. A judge who wants to correct a score raises it with the organiser, who can reopen the round. The vendor's help centre documents the round structure; this page does not restate its exact steps.
Does this service offer multi-user capability?
Multi-user capability is not documented on the vendor's public pages, so an organiser who needs team accounts should ask the vendor directly. The documented workflow centres on the organiser account and invited judges. Do not build an event around an undocumented feature.
Does this service offer an API?
The vendor's published pages do not document an API, so confirm with the vendor before planning an integration. Judgify's public documentation covers voting, judging and submission management through its own interface. Anything beyond that needs a direct answer from the vendor.
Notes and sources
- judgify.me. judgify.me/l/blog/open-new-dimension-your-awards-our-judgifys-public-voting-system/.
- hkparts.net. hkparts.net/hk-parts-build-off-contest-official-rules/.
- nationalsocialmediaawards.co.uk. nationalsocialmediaawards.co.uk/eligibility/.
- help.judgify.me. help.judgify.me/support/solutions/articles/89000005661-what-is-judgify-.
- judgify.me. judgify.me/l/pricing/.
This page is a reference summary, not legal advice, and it is not written by lawyers; each contest's own published rules carry the binding text. It never teaches vote manipulation, never names a vote seller and never promises a win. It does not restate the vendor's prices. Where the vendor's documentation is silent, the page says so rather than filling the gap.
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.