381–390 of 619 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this isn't on the landing page doesn't bode well for a 4 year old project.
Too harsh. That's normal if it's only now seeing light of day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but if you take $24 from me for a year and then offer me $0.0193 for my efforts based on upvotes I might feel a bit cheesed off about it. is that how it works? I thought it was offering payments based on who creates posts or other community tools, not based on participation. you are correct that 2 cents would be a pittance to me who doesn't even want to be paid to browse content. But if I and 1000 others gave that 2…
It reads to me like: > " [your subscription fee over my $1 take] gets split evenly between everything you upvote that month. " So if I subscribe and pay $2/month, there's $1/month from me for that, so if I upvote ten things they each get $0.03 from me and if I upvote a ten things a day that's three hundred in a month, they each get $0.0033 from me. I'm not clear if that covers comments or only top level submissions /…
I think this only works if you throttle votes (and assumedly, this only applies to voted on posts, not necessarily every comment), but that was one of the worst parts of Voat (from a technical standpoint, at least). There probably needs to be normal old infinite "I like this" votes and then treat your subscription votes as a form of gilding (except it actually does help pay someone, unlike reddit's gilding).
You can also propose that you do let non-subscribers vote, but a subscriber vote weighs more. Be it explicit* or not.
*(e.g. hover over votes and you see a split of which are "subsciber votes. Which say, counts as 5 votes or something. so A 30 point post with 2 subs votes = 20 normal voters + 2 subs)
That's not to say that a financial incentive is a bad idea, though. If you capped the amount that a user made per month to the cost of their subscription - $1, then there's no profit for users to make. They're just saving money on the subscription cost.
To be blunt, this had enough bugs out of the gate that I nearly didn't even finish registering! It feels like you rushed this out to capitalize on the reddit collapse, which I understand, but it may flop entirely because of these problems. The registration kept failing with no indication as to why, just a red X on the button. I finally figured out that it simply didn't like my email address, trying a different one wo…
Congrats on the hard work, and the idea is fine, but the problem is that tech like this is a cheap commodity in a massively oversaturated space, and without a hook that makes the platform exceptional (innovative/clever/beautiful design, unique aggregation features, inherently interesting content, reimagined user/content/moderation dynamics etc etc), this kind of thing is dead in the water because it lacks a network e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whereas if there are fake internet points attached, it is only almost certain to be gamed and abused.
But it will be gamed and abused by people that care about fake internet points. Those are very different people from those who want to extract as much money by any means available
The basic incentive of money drives all sorts of things. Maybe the best “exploit” will be to find interesting and novel links.