Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I like this idea. I'm sure there are flaws that need to be tackled (Should we discount the votes of the leechers who vote "meh" on everything to avoid paying? Would this encourage publishers to post lots of short articles instead of long thoughtful ones to raise revenues?). Look at flattr for an implementation similar to this in some ways. But in general, I think this is an excellent idea and should be tried.


Certainly there are details that need to be thought through, but I believe I've covered the important questions you raise:

>Should we discount the votes of the leechers who vote "meh" on everything to avoid paying?

Unlike flatter, subscribers pay monthly, up front. Voting does not affect how much you pay, only how your flat payment is distributed across the publishers in the collective. It is thus impossible to leach. If a subscriber honestly votes "meh" on everything because all the content is (to her) truly meh, then she should probably discontinue her subscription. That is as it should be. The free market mechanism applies not just to comparative success of publishers within this collective, but the collective as a whole. If the collective cannot retain a sufficient number of subscribers, it should fail.

>Would this encourage publishers to post lots of short articles instead of long thoughtful ones to raise revenues?

Good point. Clearly we should remove the "if" from my statement about "garbage" votes, which are explicitly designed to penalize any and all gaming, as determined by the subscribers. If subscribers detect such behavior (We would encourage such a critical attitude among the subscriber community culture) they should vote "meh" or "garbage" depending on the degree of offense.

But what if those many short articles were actually good? Should five short articles get the same share of subscription fees as one long thoughtful one? I'd like to leave this in the hands of the subscribers, but also keep the system simple. Maybe we allow greater than +1 for "worth it" votes, which would increase that article's share of revenue, and may or may not increase it's ranking in any recommendation system that we include in this system.

I've had this idea for over a year (along with many others intended to get us off this advertising addiction). Maybe I (or we!) should get this moving! If you or anyone else is interested, whether to flesh out the idea, evangelize it, or build it, shoot me an email.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: