Contests with IP and device limits: one vote per network without crossing the line

What does one vote per network or device mean for a supporter?

It means the contest tries to count each connection or device once, and a supporter who meets the limit sees a message saying a vote has already come from there.

The contest decides how it recognises a connection or a device, and it rarely explains the method. That matters because it makes the limit hard to predict from outside. Two supporters in different rooms can look alike to the contest if they share a router. One person using two browsers on the same phone might look like one device, or might not. We do not guess, and we do not state how any particular contest does it. We test what we can see: what the page says, what the rules say, and what supporters report.

What the rule is really trying to do

One vote per person is the aim. A network or device limit is a rough proxy for it, and like any proxy it catches some honest people. The more shared a connection is, the more often a genuine supporter meets a block that was not meant for them. So the promotion job is twofold: spread asks so that groups are not funnelled into one connection, and tell blocked supporters what to do next without pushing them toward tricks.

Who gets blocked by a network or device limit, and what is the honest option?

Anyone who shares a connection or a device with someone who has already voted.

How to read the table

The honest option is always something a genuine supporter can do alone, on their own device, without altering anything. Where the limit still blocks a person who has not voted, the answer is a message to the organizer, not a trick. We show you how to write that message in the last section.

Which workarounds are honest, and which ones do we refuse?

Honest options respect the rule that each person votes once. Refused options exist to get an extra vote or to hide where a vote comes from.

Honest

• Each supporter votes on their own phone, on whichever connection they normally use.
• Colleagues and family members vote at different times and, where possible, from different places such as home and mobile data.
• You ask the organizer, in writing, whether a school, a workplace or a venue can be accommodated, and what the rules say about it.
• You tell groups the rules up front, so nobody is surprised by an already-voted message.

Refused

• VPNs, proxies and any tool that changes or hides where a vote comes from.
• Clearing cookies, switching to private windows or resetting a device to vote again.
• Passing one phone around a room, or borrowing several devices to cast extra votes.
• Running a voting session where a crowd votes together from one connection.

We do not use or suggest any of the refused items, and we do not accept projects that need them. The no-bots policy covers the whole boundary, and the page on projects we decline explains what happens when a project depends on them.

How do you word the ask for families, classrooms and offices?

Say that each person votes on their own phone, once, and that a block is possible when people share a connection. Then tell them what to do about it.

For a family or neighbourhood chat:

Please vote for my entry on your own phone: [entry link]. If it says a vote has already come from your network, try again later or on mobile data, and tell me if it still does not work. One vote per person, please.

For an office or club:

Vote from your own phone, one at a time. If someone nearby has just voted and you are blocked, try later from home.

Questions to ask before you send to a shared network

• Is this group likely to sit on one connection, such as a classroom or open-plan floor?
• Can they vote at different times or from different places?
• Does anyone in the group already know the rules?
• Have you got the organizer's answer on any exception?

If the answers are no, hold the ask until they are yes. More variants are in the templates for asking people to vote, and community, email and messenger outreach covers consent-based group messages.

What about a school assembly, a club night or an office push?

Do not run them as a vote-together moment. A room of people on one connection is the exact case the limit was built to catch, and the votes that matter may be refused.

An illustrative example, not a real client: a school club wants its members to vote for a team entry. The tempting plan is a lunchtime session in the computer room. The better plan is to hand out the link and the rules, ask each member to vote at home on their own phone, and remind them the next morning. Nobody is blocked, nobody is tempted to find a trick, and the club learns who needs help with the steps.

Events

At a club night or a launch event, use a printed card or a screen with the link and a short sentence on how to vote. Invite people to vote later, from their own connection. The event creates the interest; the vote happens elsewhere.

Schools and minors

When young people are involved, a parent or guardian must agree to the entry and the promotion. See beauty, kids, pets and school contests for the way we handle consent before any outreach begins.

How do you measure votes that a limit swallows?

By collecting reports by group and comparing them with visits and the counter.

The contest will not tell you how many votes it refused, so you build the picture from three sources:

• Tagged visits per group: families, school, office, public.
• The entry counter, written down before and after each wave.
• Blocked reports: a short note from supporters who met an already-voted message, with their group and what they tried next.

Reading the pattern

If blocked reports cluster in one group, such as an office, the limit is catching that group and the ask needs to change for them: different timing, a note about mobile data, or a request to the organizer. If blocked reports are spread everywhere, the issue may be the way the contest identifies devices, and the right step is to write to the organizer with examples.

We do not push supporters to reduce the blocked count by any means other than honest ones. A lower number achieved through tricks is worse than a higher number of blocked genuine votes, because the entry can be removed. How we read results describes the reporting we do, and the calendar shows how to stagger waves.

Where do the limits of this protection sit, and what should you send us?

How a contest recognises a network or a device, and what it does with shared connections, sits entirely with the organizer. We can test what is visible and report what supporters experience, but we cannot see inside the method, and we will not claim to. Where a limit blocks genuine supporters, we draft the message to the organizer, listing who is affected and what you are asking for.

To begin, send the contest link, the rules, your entry, the deadline and a note on where your supporters are likely to connect from through the free contest analysis. We reply with a read of the rules, separate asks for each group and a draft message to the organizer if one is needed. For the other checks a contest might use, see the overview of voting protection types.

How it works

1. Read what the rules say about the limitNote whether the limit is per network, per device or both, and what the rules say about shared connections.
2. Map where supporters connect fromSort your audience into homes, schools, offices, venues and mobile users.
3. Write an ask for each groupEach person votes alone on their own phone, with a line on what to do if blocked.
4. Stagger the wavesSend groups on different days so that no connection is asked to deliver everyone at once.
5. Collect blocked reports by groupCompare them with visits and the counter, and write to the organizer if a whole group is affected.