Gittip, Year Two • Hacker News Board

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#171

Post by unreal37 » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:13 PM UTC

betamatt wrote: post #155

pekk wrote: post #12

Gittip is a nice idea. But sadly, it has become a place for certain people to receive hefty monthly paychecks from anonymous patrons in exchange for incredibly aggressive and toxic trolling. Despite original intentions, this is not making an ecosystem of love and gratitude. So if its creator isn't even making money from it, it's probably better if it goes to sleep.

The only way you get money on gittip is by producing something others think is valuable and want to see more of. People are voting with their money, which is infinitely heavier than voting with HN comments.

Could I not pay myself $100 per week? Or could I not pay you $100 per week if you pay me $100 per week?

Seems the voting with money system can easily be gamed.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#172

Post by greatbigtable » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:18 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #92

I have a few criticisms of Gittip, with the caveat that I'm largely criticizing you for not being something else that I want, rather than for not doing a good job at the thing that you're currently doing. 1) Is there some sort of legal reason that Gittip doesn't want to manage all of my non-profit giving? 2) What's with the focus on programming? The programming community is tiny, and will be better off piggybacking o…

I think the trouble with the Gittip site is that I have learned more about Gittip outside of the site through articles, testimonials, and mentions, than through the site itself.

I almost wish that some of the stories of the people who both give to and receive from Gittip had more of a center stage so that I could send someone to Gittip without having to do all the explanations myself. It would be way better for them to be able to explore that meaning for themselves which would allow them to figure out if they would like to be a giver, or a receiver, or both.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#173

Post by rhizome » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:24 PM UTC

ta140604 wrote: post #161

rhizome wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out problems is actually a very important part of any solution. You don't lambaste QA people because they don't actually fix bugs.

Agreed. The problem is, they exaggerate and twist the truth, spread hate, unnecessarily antagonizing people, and actively push away those who try to reach out to them trying to do something.

I don't agree that any of that is a problem. It's not their responsibility to help you do the right thing any more than it's a (again with the theme) QA person's job to teach the programmer proper coding practice. Separation of concerns, if you will.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#174

Post by ianbicking » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

whit537 wrote: post #126

ianbicking wrote: post #117

One thing that I think Gittip is going to require is that people actually ask to receive donations. I'm guessing that the people who are doing best through Gittip do just that. It's a voluntary gift-oriented community, but that shouldn't get in the way of asking. Chad: one thing I will note is that, though you are very open in the article about what you are making, and clearly you want more gifts to sustain yourself…

You may be right. Certainly, "asking" has been a success factor for people using Gittip, which is fine. For myself, I like not overtly asking for money too much, because then the gifts I do receive feel that much more genuine. :-) What if instead of normalizing asking (pull), we normalized generosity (push)?

I know asking is hard, and uncomfortable, but I feel like you are coming up with excuses to avoid the hard and uncomfortable thing. But I also suspect you know you have to do uncomfortable things to make this succeed. Asking/pulling extends the network, pushing does not. Certainly you aren't the only one reluctant to ask, but I think there's room to experiment with creative ways to ask, ones that will feel more authentic to you.

Also I'm going to pull out the Lesson In Humility card.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#175

Post by morgante » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:36 PM UTC

Maybe I'm confused about the mission of Gittip, but I always thought it was (based on the name) supposed to support valuable open source work. Given this, it seems sad that the leaderboard prominently features people whose contributions are definitely not made in the form of git commits.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#176

Post by canvia » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:39 PM UTC

greatbigtable wrote: post #169

joeyh wrote: post #165

This reminds me that I have a small amount of tips on gittip. However, I can only withdraw it by adding a bank account. Security concerns make this not appealing, at least not at the current level of funds. The cost/benefit is not there for me. And so I've not yet really made money on gittip, which doesn't give me much incentive to promote it. (Beyond thinking the open company idea is pretty cool. But that also means…

Add Paypal withdraw support. People don't like having to spread their account information all over the place. Leverage what they already have access to in their lives; note the proliferation of Twitter and Facebook logins all over the web.

Cryptocoin would be a nice option as well.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#177

Post by hythloday » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:40 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #47

peteretep wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three of the top four receivers appear to fit the label "moderately well known and divisive figure in the tech feminism scene".

I think more seriously https://www.gittip.com/noirin/ has stuff on her profile that directly deprecates her husband. I don't anything about this case, but I'd say in general it makes me uncomfortable that somebody is bringing up a personal conflict on a platform like this.

You have no problem with her husband "bringing up a personal conflict" using a legal system that you are obliged to pay for, but a woman using a voluntary site to fund her defence makes you uncomfortable?

Check your fly, sir, your prejudices are showing.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#178

Post by betamatt » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:42 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #171

betamatt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way you get money on gittip is by producing something others think is valuable and want to see more of. People are voting with their money, which is infinitely heavier than voting with HN comments.

Could I not pay myself $100 per week? Or could I not pay you $100 per week if you pay me $100 per week? Seems the voting with money system can easily be gamed.

Yes, sure, whatever, who cares? Irrelevant to a conversation about who has a "right" to use the platform, and for what purposes.

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#179

Post by joaren » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:50 PM UTC

danilocampos wrote: post #160

joaren wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never liked Gittip because of how it advertises its top earners and givers... it stops being about rewarding good work and starts to become a game of who can score the most validation points and use them for political gain. Yelling on Twitter and demonizing men for existing is not "promoting empathy and equality". Begging for legal money for your civil lawsuit is not "sustainable crowd funding" (hint: what is she b…

Indeed. A pox upon the beggars. How dare they ask others to volunteer money for a cause or outcome they believe in. I call for refunds from: Pebble Oculus Reading Rainbow Lifx Double Fine Adventure Lavabit Wikileaks Ron Paul Barack May they think carefully in the future before acting in such poor taste.

Nice straw man. Most of those actually produce something useful, and there is a direct relationship between money given and product delivered.

I mean Jesus, earlier I saw Ashe Dryden complain that Gittip "doesn't care about her safety" and that she's now in a precarious position because she's "locked in" to it. Pretty sure she's the one who asked people to give her all that money. If she doesn't like it, she can go back to actually working for a living, like the rest of us. I took one look at Gittip when it opened up and said "Nope".

Re: Gittip, Year Two

#180

Post by webwright » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 7:58 PM UTC

whit537 wrote: post #131

webwright wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read: http://blog.eladgil.com/2012/10/startups-miracles.html I think you're shooting for two miracles here - the core idea PLUS the idea that open work is the best way to create a consumer/facing service when all of the evidence seems to point that it's not.

Thanks, I read it. > Many people delude themselves on whether they are a one-miracle, or multi-miracle startup. They way to tell is to ask yourself what your product or business end goal is. Is your approach directly focused on achieving that end goal? If not, you may have a multi-miracle plan without realizing it. Gittip's end goal is to enable an economy of gratitude, generosity, and love. So you tell me: is our ap…

Nope.

If that's your goal (which is a good, but again could use a marketing brain), it's pretty easy to make a list of what needs to exist/happen for that goal to succeed. To me, it's hard to argue that "try a radically different way of developing the product/company" should be ANYWHERE on that list, any more than "run a kickstarter campaign for every new feature" should be on Kickstarter's list or "we should outsource all of our product development" should be on oDesk's list. To me, it looks like adding a ton of unnecessary risk, though it certainly does tell a nice "we're eating our own dogfood" story. But, heck-- I've been wrong plenty before.