I probably would have also responded if Zack had sent his comment verbatim as a PM. Maybe not as quickly or in exactly the same way, e.g. I wouldn’t have included the digression about incentives.
But anyway, I did in fact respond, so I don’t think it’s valid to conclude much about what would have been “clearly ineffective” in a counterfactual.
One other point that you seem to be missing is that it’s possible to exert social pressure via private channels, with or without financial incentives (and I’m also fine with Zack or others trying this, in general). Private might even be more effective at eliciting a response, in some cases.
In retrospect, I feel guilty about impulsively mixing the “cheerful price” mechanism and the “social pressure” mechanism. I suspect Said is right that the gimmick of the former added to the “punch” of the latter, but at the terrible cost of undermining the integrity of the former (it’s supposed to be cheerful!). I apologize for that.
I probably would have also responded if Zack had sent his comment verbatim as a PM. Maybe not as quickly or in exactly the same way, e.g. I wouldn’t have included the digression about incentives.
But anyway, I did in fact respond, so I don’t think it’s valid to conclude much about what would have been “clearly ineffective” in a counterfactual.
One other point that you seem to be missing is that it’s possible to exert social pressure via private channels, with or without financial incentives (and I’m also fine with Zack or others trying this, in general). Private might even be more effective at eliciting a response, in some cases.
In retrospect, I feel guilty about impulsively mixing the “cheerful price” mechanism and the “social pressure” mechanism. I suspect Said is right that the gimmick of the former added to the “punch” of the latter, but at the terrible cost of undermining the integrity of the former (it’s supposed to be cheerful!). I apologize for that.