0 sats \ 21 replies \ @kr 14 May 2022 \ parent \ on: Ask SN: what's your best 30 minute orange pilling video? bitcoin
if @k00b asks a question, he could set a bounty amount. if he really wants a great video recommendation, maybe his bounty is 10,000 sats. if he doesn’t care that much, maybe his bounty is 100 sats. this acts as a signal for community members to decide how much effort they want to put into providing an answer.
community members can send in video recommendations, and within 24 hours @k00b could pick his favorite answer to give 50% of the bounty amount he set.
the other 50% of the bounty could go to the answer that the community deems most valuable (determined by the exact same comment ranking algo that is already used on the site).
in some cases, it could be that the original poster also chooses the comment that the community deems most valuable, and they get 100% of the bounty.
Your first paragraph contradicts your previous post when you said “ a bounty amount up front would not incentivize people to contribute better answers?”
Then you say the person could chose whatever amount they liked for any answer. Which goes back comment about my initial comment being the best because maybe the person likes a hilarious answer over “better” answers.
reply
no, it is not a contradiction.
the original poster sets a bounty amount when they create a discussion post on SN (similar to how people can set boost amounts on their posts right now).
the only difference is that instead of the boost going to all active SN members via airdrops, it goes to the people actively contributing good answers on a particular thread.
the fact that a bounty amount has been committed up front by the original poster is a signal for how much time and effort other members might want to put into crafting an answer.
the original poster would have the power to give someone 50% of the bounty they committed to the post.
the other 50% of the bounty would go to the answer that the community deems most valuable.
it’s possible that the original poster chooses a funny comment, or that the community chooses one that you don’t personally agree with as the ‘best’ answer. if the original poster is committing their own sats to the bounty, they should have some say in which comment they think is best.
the reason i’m suggesting that the community should also have a say is so the original poster can’t redirect the entire bounty to a fake account they create with a bad answer.
reply
They could also be biased against people who have a great answer because of anyone of societies negative reasons. For example, they don’t like the person and no matter how hard that person works to get a great answer for the bounty, and maybe it even IS the right answer, they will still get nothing.
Terrible idea and centralized around pleasing a group and an individual.
reply
anybody can already be biased against anybody on stacker news. any user can already choose to not tip other users for whatever reason they want.
all that changes is that the original poster is committing to spending at least a set amount up front (half of which will go to their fav comment, half to the community’s fav comment).
the original poster and all commenters can still tip anyone they want in whatever amount they want, just like the platform works today.
again, the difference is that there is a guarantee that at least one user will earn at least a set amount for contributing an answer to a question.
can you explain how this is a terrible idea, how this is centralized, and how this bounty pleases a group?
reply
Giving a tip for any answer is completely different than having a bounty set for “the right answer” or any answer.
Those are two different games.
tipping is a free expression while setting a bounty with no guidelines being judged by a group is well centralized.
reply
tips and bounties each solve a specific problem, and are not mutually exclusive. we can have both.
again, my suggestion is that by enabling bounties (on top of the existing tipping system), posters can incentivize great answers.
as an example, look at the top earning user of all time on stacker news.
they gave an incredibly valuable answer to someone’s question (who advertised a 1 million sat bounty).
would they have put the same level of thought and detail into their answer without the bounty? i’d say no.
would the rest of the community have collectively tipped 1 million sats for the answer? no, that didn’t happen.
the poster got an excellent answer to their question, and in return, the commenter got 10,000x more sats than they would have received without the bounty.
win-win.
reply
I’ll say it again, tipping is a free expression while setting a bounty being judged by a group is well centralized.
reply
first, we know tipping is a free expression. bounties are free expressions too.
the original poster is entirely free to choose whether or not to offer users a bounty. the original poster is also entirely free to pick their favorite comment, and reward it with half of their bounty.
the community members are also entirely free to pick their favorite comment, and can collectively reward one comment with half of the bounty.
in my posts above, i shared an example and a framework for how the two systems can co-exist, and dramatically increase the quality of content on SN, and the earning amounts for valued contributors.
you haven’t made any arguments for why adding a bounty system on top of the existing tipping system is a bad idea.