It is very hard to find new content buried among all of the noise.
The solution is to facilitate micropayments. People aren’t going to spend as much money on topics that there’s a surplus of. The more readily available something is… the less money that people are willing to pay for it. So facilitating micropayments will allow the crowd to help lift the scarcest/rarest and most valuable content to the top of the list.
Oranges used to be a luxury. In other words, an orange was uncommon but valuable content. Then what happened? Payment.
Orchids used to be a luxury. In other words, an orchid was uncommon but valuable content. Then what happened? Payment.
So we add (micro)payments to Reddit, Youtube, Less Wrong and what will happen? What will happen when we incentivize/reward people who produce scarce but valuable content?
Neither. I screwed up the link, then found I’d somehow posted the same reply twice, with the second time including a functioning link. Since there’s no way to actually remove the blank comment—just to strike it out—I thought I might as well leave it.
“The solution”—People have been trying to get micropayments working for decades and it still doesn’t seem to have had any major successes. Regardless, all micropayments would do is further incentivise the kinds of articles that are already been voted to the top and make the issues discussed here worse.
People have been trying to get micropayments working for decades and it still doesn’t seem to have had any major successes.
My approach is ridiculously simple. In the forum thread that I linked to… nobody has disputed my approach yet.
Regardless, all micropayments would do is further incentivise the kinds of articles that are already been voted to the top and make the issues discussed here worse.
So popularity equals demand? That sure would make economics a whole lot easier. Nobody would have to spend any money. We’d all just vote for all the products that we want. Voila! The efficient allocation of society’s limited resources!
According to your theory, the most voted for threads on this forum would receive the most money. Care to bet on that? If so, how much?
The same economics article isn’t going to be equally valuable in both subs. In the first sub, Ha-Joon Chang’s articles are going to be a lot more valuable than Peter Boettke’s articles. And the opposite would be true in the second sub.
Thanks for sharing! Blendle is pretty neat because you can get a refund if you’re unsatisfied. But I’m pretty sure that the “One-Price-Fits-All” (OPFA) model isn’t as good as the “Pay-What-You-Want” (PWYW) model.
The solution is to facilitate micropayments. People aren’t going to spend as much money on topics that there’s a surplus of. The more readily available something is… the less money that people are willing to pay for it. So facilitating micropayments will allow the crowd to help lift the scarcest/rarest and most valuable content to the top of the list.
Oranges used to be a luxury. In other words, an orange was uncommon but valuable content. Then what happened? Payment.
Orchids used to be a luxury. In other words, an orchid was uncommon but valuable content. Then what happened? Payment.
So we add (micro)payments to Reddit, Youtube, Less Wrong and what will happen? What will happen when we incentivize/reward people who produce scarce but valuable content?
https://medium.com/on-blendle/blendle-a-radical-experiment-with-micropayments-in-journalism-365-days-later-f3b799022edc
Is this comment supposed to be empty or am I supposed to pay to see it?
Neither. I screwed up the link, then found I’d somehow posted the same reply twice, with the second time including a functioning link. Since there’s no way to actually remove the blank comment—just to strike it out—I thought I might as well leave it.
Joke noted.
It’s possible to delete comments if nobody responded if you reload the page.
“The solution”—People have been trying to get micropayments working for decades and it still doesn’t seem to have had any major successes. Regardless, all micropayments would do is further incentivise the kinds of articles that are already been voted to the top and make the issues discussed here worse.
My approach is ridiculously simple. In the forum thread that I linked to… nobody has disputed my approach yet.
So popularity equals demand? That sure would make economics a whole lot easier. Nobody would have to spend any money. We’d all just vote for all the products that we want. Voila! The efficient allocation of society’s limited resources!
According to your theory, the most voted for threads on this forum would receive the most money. Care to bet on that? If so, how much?
50 Shades of Gray is the best novel because the most people payed for it?
“The Secret” is on of the most important personal development books because a lot of people brought it?
Heh. I started reading my gf’s 50 Shades of Gray on her kindle… but I couldn’t finish it because it was so bad. She liked it though. shrug
Here are two subreddits...
Economy
Invisible hand
The same economics article isn’t going to be equally valuable in both subs. In the first sub, Ha-Joon Chang’s articles are going to be a lot more valuable than Peter Boettke’s articles. And the opposite would be true in the second sub.
See how that would work? There’s riches in niches.
Here’s a promising experiment with micropayments for journalism.
Thanks for sharing! Blendle is pretty neat because you can get a refund if you’re unsatisfied. But I’m pretty sure that the “One-Price-Fits-All” (OPFA) model isn’t as good as the “Pay-What-You-Want” (PWYW) model.