Search Ideas

In a future iteration, the user could additionally set a per-criticism ceiling. Which the site would recommend setting when using permissive terms.

This way, the user could set a total budget of $200, say, while capping each criticism at $30, for example. The first 6 eligible criticisms would each get $30, and the next one would get $20. The remaining criticisms would get nothing.

This approach effectively merges #3474 and #3472, giving users maximum flexibility to choose the best outcome depending on what kinds of criticism they anticipate getting based on their terms.

I don’t think so, no.

The BoI chapter 1 glossary defines empiricism as “The misconception that we ‘derive’ all our knowledge from sensory experience.” I’m not saying empirical fields derive knowledge from sensory experience.

There’s a difference between ‘empiricism’ and ‘empirical’.

This approach is more complex for the bounty initiator than just indicating a total amount they are willing to spend (#3474). It’s best not to require users to do math.

Given the need for a deadline, all critics get paid at the same time anyway.

There could be a UI component showing estimated payout based on current number of criticisms, with a warning that actual payout could be less.

Could pay out to only first x criticisms, where x is small enough the payout for each criticism is high enough to cover transaction costs (and then some).

I can roll out the feature to a few trusted users. Then I can reevaluate later with more experience to judge actual risks rather than speculate ahead of time.

See #3452. Other critics have an incentive to report abuse. People found to abuse deadlines could become ineligible for payouts and excluded from participating in future bounties.

A modification of #2513 could work. Say you start a bounty. Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, your card is charged the full authorization. Admins can even decide to stop the bounty early if they detect abuse before the grace period beings.

People who feel cheated can reach out to admins to report bad bounty initiators. Admins can then prevent such initiators from starting more bounties in the future.

There could be an additional grace period for admins to review the initiator’s selections.

The grace period prevents abuse from people other than the bounty initiator.

It doesn’t. It only prevents abuse of the initiator. It doesn’t prevent others from submitting arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to exclude criticisms from the bounty.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You start a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks, say, per pending criticism received by some deadline.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable (while covering transaction costs). The user also indicates a ceiling for the maximum amount they are willing to spend.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user indicates terms such as what kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos, say.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. They may even award a bounty to problematic criticisms, at their discretion. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period. If doing so would exceed the ceiling, more recent criticisms do not get the bounty.

People can speculate, but if there’s a grace period, they won’t know how many pending criticisms there will be in the end. So they may still get a payout.

Unlike #3424, however, having a set amount per pending criticism means there’s zero incentive for anyone to submit more criticisms, whereas divvying up the amount among pending criticisms means the incentive is reduced only gradually, and it’s up to people to decide for themselves whether contributions are still worth making.

Rather than set a fixed amount for each pending criticism (#3421), the ceiling could be divided among all pending criticisms equally.

There could be a grace period. For example, 24 hours after the bounty ends, no new criticisms can be posted on the bountied idea. That way, the bounty initiator has time to review pending criticisms.

and others

If others can still participate during that time, it’s not really a grace period.

Then all pending criticisms automatically receive equal payouts.

This idea introduces additional complexity and edge cases. For example, what happens if authorization fails? Need something simpler for an MVP version of this feature.

While this idea sounded promising at first, I now realize it just moves the deadline problem one level underneath the bountied idea.

Would still be a hassle for users to track refunds.

There could still be a button to report abuse. People found to abuse deadlines could become ineligible for payouts and excluded from participating in future bounties.

Although there’s a risk for abuse, that’s a feature: it will lead to lively discussions among critics.

What incentive would others have to submit arbitrary criticisms? They’re not the ones paying.