Difference between revisions of "Points brainstorming"
m (→What should it be called?) |
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
: I think the social engineering names are bad--at their base level they are a service currency for service products, even if they can be used to reward other users you like. And you can't buy kudos, to call them that almost feels like moral bullying --[[User:Foxfirefey|Foxfirefey]] 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | : I think the social engineering names are bad--at their base level they are a service currency for service products, even if they can be used to reward other users you like. And you can't buy kudos, to call them that almost feels like moral bullying --[[User:Foxfirefey|Foxfirefey]] 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | : Erm, I hope I'm doing this right. :P Plurk.com implements Karma - basically, you get points for commenting on other people's plurks and for plurking yourself fairly often. It's a great idea but it has a lot of room for being manipulated. They had to rewrite their code to recognize spam comments so people could actually LOSE karma for plurking TOO MUCH. I like the idea of "karma" being something that's handed out by the community because it holds that "what goes around comes around" philosophy. '''What about having two separate systems?''' Points (called something else) that you buy for yourself and can earn yourself and points (called karma or something like it) that you can buy for others and receive from others? That might be making things too complicated, but it's just a thought. :) -- [[User:Chasy|Chasy]]12:44pm 1-12-09 | + | |
| + | :: Erm, I hope I'm doing this right. :P Plurk.com implements Karma - basically, you get points for commenting on other people's plurks and for plurking yourself fairly often. It's a great idea but it has a lot of room for being manipulated. They had to rewrite their code to recognize spam comments so people could actually LOSE karma for plurking TOO MUCH. I like the idea of "karma" being something that's handed out by the community because it holds that "what goes around comes around" philosophy. '''What about having two separate systems?''' Points (called something else) that you buy for yourself and can earn yourself and points (called karma or something like it) that you can buy for others and receive from others? That might be making things too complicated, but it's just a thought. :) -- [[User:Chasy|Chasy]]12:44pm 1-12-09 | ||
== Should we offer one denomination level or several? == | == Should we offer one denomination level or several? == | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 12 January 2009
Sectioned off so that discussion for each of these points can go in separate areas. --Ursamajor 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC) added to by siliconshaman 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Contents
What do we need to consider?
Things to consider:
- Suitable warnings: DW isn't going to arbitrate if you give people points.
- Accounting: This could cause tricky accounting for funding.
- Begging! How does that effect the social landscape?
How should it work?
- Good things to use for points: micro-purchases, expensive one-time processes like generating journal PDFs.
- Users can buy points.
- Nonrefundable.
- Users can give points to each other: rewards the creative economy and gives people who are contributing to that economy by their content creation the chance to buy paid account features.
How do users gain whatchamacallits?
- Points are, at their most basic level, bought. Smaller purchases get you proportionately less points than larger purchases, due to the processing fees.
- Points can be given/received for others.
- It would also be possible for DW to give points to people they felt deserved them.
What should it be called?
Points to be made about themed vs. unthemed.
Should avoid anything that could easily be construed as a real-world currency, whether past or present.
"Points" has negative connotations for some (see mailing list).
Neutral term that avoids excessive themeing or cuteness: "measures" or "bits"?
Social engineering, calling them 'Kudos' or 'karma' ??
- I think the social engineering names are bad--at their base level they are a service currency for service products, even if they can be used to reward other users you like. And you can't buy kudos, to call them that almost feels like moral bullying --Foxfirefey 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, I hope I'm doing this right. :P Plurk.com implements Karma - basically, you get points for commenting on other people's plurks and for plurking yourself fairly often. It's a great idea but it has a lot of room for being manipulated. They had to rewrite their code to recognize spam comments so people could actually LOSE karma for plurking TOO MUCH. I like the idea of "karma" being something that's handed out by the community because it holds that "what goes around comes around" philosophy. What about having two separate systems? Points (called something else) that you buy for yourself and can earn yourself and points (called karma or something like it) that you can buy for others and receive from others? That might be making things too complicated, but it's just a thought. :) -- Chasy12:44pm 1-12-09
Should we offer one denomination level or several?
Depends on the relative price range of services to be offered?
Recommend establishing a few base values to give people some idea of intended relative worth: e.g., one year's paid account is the base unit with smaller purchases being a fraction thereof, or one extra userpic is the base unit with larger purchases being multiples thereof.
I think it should be one denomination level to start out with--the simplest--and it should be tiny, even as tiny as 100 points to $1 when you buy them in large amounts. Their intended relative worth would be based on how much they cost to buy straight and what you could get with them. --Foxfirefey 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
