It would be cool if we had more devtome articles that were like forum style. With replies and such.
This could be very cool.  |
|
|
|
Well the 80 shares was probably a massive mistake, letting someone get that many shares, especially in one round, totally devalues everyone else's shares like crazy.
The incentive to write at all simply evaporated, heck it nearly wiped out admins and programmers and so on too from devtome authors suddenly getting 90+% or some such of all the shares, Unthinkingbit had to put in minimum percentage quotas for the admin category just to try to ensure people admin-ing websites for the project could maybe cover their hosting and bandwidth bills, maybe they still don't actually make anything once those bills are paid I am not sure.
I basically gave up writing, figuring if a whole bunch of people are going to dump 80k words on the devtome each round there really isn't much point bothering to write less words than that and since I don't figure I am likely to be able to write that many words I don't bother.
It would have made more sense probably to limit it like bounties, the biggest bounties usually seem to have been twelve shares, that is for entire programming projects specifically commissioned by the project. No author of random stuff should be able to make more than one massive bounty per round, surely? So 12 shares seems like a reasonable limit, some might say unreasonable since even that amounts to getting the largest bounty the project gives to the most-essential pieces of infrastructure yet authors get it for just having dumped 12k of some old story they wrote in high school?
The twelve shares for a bounty also tended to assume you might have a team doing the work, the team leader then shares it among the workers.
Heck entire software projects were only getting one share originally, with the team lead intended to share out those coins appropriately among all the programmers working on the project!
Open transactions doesn't even get twelve shares a round I don't think, and it gets shitloads compared to most projects because it has like maybe as many as four programmers, maybe even more, who each get one share, and they work tons and tons of hours on that stuff all the damn time! I think they get one for FellowTraveller, and one for a guy who codes and debugs and packages it all for Windows, and one for a guy who does the whole autotools auto-build mess and maybe one for some other guy too.
Maybe it should not be per thousand words but, rather, per "mean number of words per author per round", so that if typical/mean words authors contribute is 50K words then 50k words is what it takes to get a share...
-MarkM-
I understand the sentiment. My point is just that there has been much talk of simply approaching new users punitively -- and that will kill this project IMO. In that vein, to take the earlier example, one user shouldn't be able to make 80x (or whatever absurd multiple) the amount another can based on nothing but seniority. That says absolutely nothing about quality and simply skews abuse to the senior heads. There needs to be a balance where new users are incentivized to create good content -- not just people who have been around a long time. In your example based on mean words/author, what kind of range do you think we would see for share value? I'm having a tough time working it out. |
|
|
|
Not if their first submission is awesome quality and on a featured topic so it gets bonus for quality and bonus for featured article of the month and bonus for being on a specific topic that is being specially rewarded that month due to its direct relevance to other projects that are also going on and such, maybe also best new author or second best new author or whatever.
So far we seem to be spending so much on random writings that we aren't really getting a lot of other projects done that could in turn be written about, for example.
There could also be bonus for increasing the relevance of existing articles by spinning them together into some larger picture, so the whole thing hangs together more instead of being a bunch of unrelated pages without much in the way of relevant links drawing readers deeper and deeper in as they follow the links to learn more and more about all the various pieces of the puzzle...
-MarkM-
I agree with much of the sentiment. Indeed, the more broadly connected content is, the better. To the extent that we can improve on that, I'm all for it. I just want to iterate that there needs to be a baseline expectation -- and if writers meet that, they shouldn't be penalized. The idea that every new writer is going to be "the best" is a bit unrealistic. As long as we meet the stated guidelines and proofread our work (granted -- not everything I see does or has been), we shouldn't have to wonder if we will be paid. From the perspective of someone who has not been around long (at all), I'll say that the idea of setting the barrier to entry so high -- i.e. some writers can get 80 shares while I can get 1 share -- that will be the beginning of the end. No question about it. If you don't retain significant incentive for new users (and then you essentially tie incentives to the goodwill of a given set of administrators), who will you attract, exactly? I can assure you it won't be writers that are good enough to value their own time. Promises of moving up the ladder months and months down the road, when you may be writing higher quality content than those who are earning much more? No thanks. |
|
|
|
More like start them with a one share per month maximum and have ways to move up from there.
Ouch.  It seems the quality issue always boils down to penalizing new users. |
|
|
|
I see the benefits, I just didn't think it was ok to say to new people "Buy coins before you write" and "Good luck making any money without the market going up".
And I'm all for articles being able to be selected to be better, as long as there is no way for them to be worth less. Because, new people that post a lot would get bad ratings no matter what as of now. And I would get bad ratings simply because I have trolls that follow me across the internet.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. Saying to new users they have to buy before they can participate in one of the principal uses of devcoin is nonsensical, and frankly, will come off like a pyramid scheme. And I'm all for rewarding great content. And I believe the system is already set up so as to not reward pure spam. I just have a big problem with penalizing "normal" users -- creating some sort of meritocracy (very open to admin favoritism) where writers never know whether or not we will be paid. I would never participate in a system like that, and I think it's important that admins not be able to penalize contributions that meet the basic requirements (e.g. not porn/spam/libel/malware/etc, proofread). |
|
|
|
Nice!  |
|
|
|
US politicians use wars and international intervention as a smokescreen to drive public attention away from undesirable topics.
Maybe. Then again, lots of profit to be made there.  |
|
|
|
7 figures? |
|
|
|
The way I see it, faucet payouts follow price. It may in fact be worth it, especially with the inputs.io faucets that pay out 10k+ satoshis at a time, in preparation for the next bubble. When BTC is worth $1k, $1 per drip is nothing to sneeze at. |
|
|
|
hi guys, sorry about that ,my account was hacked. how do i delete this post?
Close your browser and don't reopen it. Ever. |
|
|
|
Captchas kill me. I'm pretty sure I'm human and everything, but the amount of tries it takes sometimes...  |
|
|
|
For those starting out with nothign well not sure what to do about that... I mean you want to bring in talented people but you also don't want it to be a handout and you also want incentive to hold coins so later when there is a marketplace they can contribute to it.
The incentive to hold coins should be their value, present and speculative. That means innovation, press, marketplace, liquidity... and things in the pipeline. If the present state of things can't provide incentive to hold, it is only detrimental to devtome to force people to hold. No one wants to be paid in something that they 1) perceive to be losing value and 2) are forced to hold. You want quality? Don't kill the incentive to create. |
|
|
|
Maybe we should check how many devcoins are at the writer's receiving address, and limit the amount of writing we will pay for accordingly.
So if someone wants to dump 80k of words, they would need as many devcoins already hoarded as they would gain if they got paid for all 80 of those kilowords...
That could filter out the people who just write and dump and never come back, because if they do come back, sorry, you are not a holder of devcoins so don't qualify...
Check the average number of coins they had at that address over the last cycle-period, for example.
-MarkM-
I thought this was about contributing content? When did it become about forcing people to become bagholders? If you want to discourage quality, then this would be the thing to implement. Sure, some people will hold, some won't -- but no one wants to be forced to do anything.
pretty sweet idea! that forces people to buy as many as they earn? I think people would do it! I know if I was struggling for cash and I knew I could double my current stash by just writing I would do it. That would weed out the people abusing the system for sure.
No, it would weed out the people that start off with no cash. This. |
|
|
|
i'm in the same situation and I just leave it sitting there abandoned, I suppose it's not that big of a deal but it does mean this amount is out of the system
You can import the private key into another wallet and include the .0001 in a future payment where fees are paid from another address.
|
|
|
|
Sorry, have never heard of this service. Searching them, though, they look a bit ganky.  |
|
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, thoroughly confused.
But I did say hello!
|
|
|
|
|
How many people will receive payouts?
Registered.
|
|
|
|
No. Although, if you think bitcoins will be worth $1 million or something at some point, tucking away 10,000 satoshis here and there could turn out to be wise. |
|
|
|
I get in trouble, because I browse this forum constantly at home when me and the wife are watching tv. She gets pissed, I tell her "We are watching cartoons....and I am sitting next to you. What the hell? I am reading educational content, while the kid and you stare at Sponge-bobs nappy butt.. So stop complaining!"
Am I wrong?
wife: "but you're not present". tell her she can either continue complaining but then will not be included when you get filthy rich because of your bitcoin engagenment, or stop complaining and getting half of the treasure. That's kind of cold. If my wife is annoyed with my internet addictions, I shut the computer... |
|
|
|
|
Sure, drugs should be legal. But it has nothing to do with property.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
