Search Ideas

If they have submitted criticisms, they may get paid. So they have an incentive to submit arbitrary counter-criticisms to others’ criticisms.

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

Card authorizations will necessarily have a deadline.

Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.

You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.

The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.

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.

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

There is a counter-incentive to be the first to submit a criticism since subsequent criticisms run the risk of being duplicates, and being criticized as such.

That doesn’t address the possibility of others submitting arbitrary criticisms just before the deadline.

I believe Veritula would lose money on refunds.

Could offer refunds.

That seems like a tough sell. Users might not be willing to spend money without knowing whether anyone will submit any criticisms.

What if Veritula charges the card immediately and holds the funds?

Maybe, but what if re-authorization fails? Then nobody gets paid.

Couldn’t I let the initial authorization expire and then re-authorize the card?

Couldn’t I re-authorize the card?

The bounty initiator’s card will have to be authorized when starting the bounty. Card authorizations presumably have a deadline, so resetting the deadline won’t be an option.

But that would mean that the first criticism receives a payout at the same time the last criticism receives a payout. That creates an incentive to ignore new bounties in favor of older ones.

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

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

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

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

That could be a good thing in that people won’t completely overwhelm OP with criticisms.

But that means that additional criticisms don’t get any payout.

The initiator of the bounty could choose a ceiling for the total they are willing to spend. They could additionally specify the amount per unproblematic criticism.

For example, a user would indicate that they are willing to spend a total of $100 at $10 per criticism.

Yes, people could just start bounties on criticisms.

Idea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.