As expected we have had a few inquiries about how the Top 100 ProAdvisors were determined. While I personally don’t believe that we are compelled to qualify our criteria, any more than a group of judges in a talent or beauty contest must reveal their selection criteria, I do want to take this opportunity to let you know that this was a very complex process in which hundreds of hours were spent reviewing the various criteria used in our scoring process.
As mentioned in several articles, or comments I made regarding the Top 100, ‘the Vote’ was NOT the only (or even the primary) criteria for selection, it was merely one objective criterion.
Current ‘Intuit’ ProAdvisor status, and the various ProAdvisor certifications displayed on the Find a ProAdvisor website, including number of years certified, were objective measures that fit into the overall scores. Different certifications carried different weights in both the overall and categorical determinations (to be announced later). While it is possible that an individual’s certifications might have changed in the several months this entire process took, we could not continually review the site for those changes, as such once scored an individual’s certification scores were fixed as of that moment. Just know that as long as I am involved in this process every certification you earn will go a long way in point determination, so if you want to improve your standings make sure to get and stay certified in every certification possible.
Verifiable 3rd Party-product credentials were another factor; we didn’t simply accept the fact that a nomination listed products as a 'carte blanche' basis for the award of points. If we couldn’t confirm credentials, we didn’t award points. This obviously is an area we here at IA need to work on for next year’s nomination form; using or recommending a product is not the same as having been trained and certified on a product and we need to make that clear in the nominating process.
Another criterion used was the Find a ProAdvisor ratings; but not just the score, the total number of ratings issued also came into play. So an individual with only 3 ratings of 5 stars would not have scored as highly as someone with 40 ratings averaging 4.9 stars. If you are disappointed in your standings overall, this is clearly another area that you can work on to bolster your score for next year. If you are not currently enrolled in the ranking option, turn it on; and get all your clients to rate you. We consider this a valuable criterion in how your clients rank your performance.
These are still not all of the objective criteria we used, but are representative of the efforts we went to in our selection process. I wish there was an easy way to punch a button on the computer and come up with the ‘best of the best’ but there isn't; maybe the complexity associated with this process is indicative of why nobody else has even attempted to do this before, it was a lot of work.
We did our best, and we are sorry to disappoint the 170 individuals who didn’t make the Top 100. Still the same you are all to be commended for being nominated. Unfortunately I anticipate that we will probably disappoint even more people in the years to come as participation is likely to grow.
By the way, with the exception of one person, everyone will have a 1 in 100 better chance next year, and that is because the recipient of the 2014 ProAdvisor of the Year will be retired from the competition. As a result, that person’s spot in the Top 100 and ‘at the top’ will be available in 2015. Individuals who earn categorical distinctions will be retired from their category but will be able to participate in the overall process until such time as they might earn the ProAdvisor of the Year award.
In the long run, not everyone who is nominated can win, or even make the list of 100. Lots of political candidates are nominated and feel they are qualified but they still don’t win. Even Abraham Lincoln didn’t win his first eight campaigns.