Please advice on how to link in the Hated section (soon to be renamed, I hope). I just tried, but the process eludes me.
Bruno~
Topic: Digg/Reddit like News site. Voting is based on Bitcoins! - page 2. (Read 8841 times)
There is now a section in the site called "hated" which is all things that have negative BTC values.
You should probably delete this. You don't seem to grasp the idea at all, so it doesn't make sense for you to pursue it.
Now I'm in a pickle! Boy, that link sucks (in reference to the first link in the new 'Hated' section)! In a way, I agree with cunicula, but in another way I don't. Even if his statement "You don't seem to grasp the idea at all" is accurate, at least Rob is trying his damndest to make this a go. I would say he's still open for suggestion on this aspect, as well as any others related to the site. That said, I've never been too keen on the word 'hate'. Perhaps titling it 'abhor' or 'loathe' (no past tense) may be better suited for this section. I lean toward 'loathe'.
So, instead of simply deleting this section, let's explore, together, on how we can make this work. If it turns out to be a bomb, Rob's smart enough to rid that section, thus freeing up his time developing the sound attributes of this venerable website.
~Bruno~
There is now a section in the site called "hated" which is all things that have negative BTC values.
You should probably delete this. You don't seem to grasp the idea at all, so it doesn't make sense for you to pursue it.
There is now a section in the site called "hated" which is all things that have negative BTC values.
There was in the original design a down button. Down votes were counted twice what up votes were counted, and nothing went to the poster. The down vote would be another address for the post.
You are completely missing the point.
When staring at the facebook "like" icon, how often have you wished for a "dislike" icon that might link to a "hatebook" instead?
If you are me, this occurs several times a day. I have no facebook page, but I am ready to sign up for hatebook right now.
Your site's potential profitability is directly proportional to the amount of attention paid to it. Hateful stuff attracts attention.
I propose that you monetize social network connections emerging from common hate. This is an under-exploited niche in my view.
If this ain't a million dollar idea post, I will lick Matthews balls in front of the Cheomseongdae Observatory during peak visiting hour.
I hate eating balls!
We will see. After seeing a bunch of requests for this, I am going with the flow. There are now down-votes on the site. Down-votes count twice as much as up-votes.
I'll add the hated section tomorrow.
There was in the original design a down button. Down votes were counted twice what up votes were counted, and nothing went to the poster. The down vote would be another address for the post.
You are completely missing the point.
When staring at the facebook "like" icon, how often have you wished for a "dislike" icon that might link to a "hatebook" instead?
If you are me, this occurs several times a day. I have no facebook page, but I am ready to sign up for hatebook right now.
Your site's potential profitability is directly proportional to the amount of attention paid to it. Hateful stuff attracts attention.
I propose that you monetize social network connections emerging from common hate. This is an under-exploited niche in my view.
If this ain't a million dollar idea post, I will lick Matthews balls in front of the Cheomseongdae Observatory during peak visiting hour.
I hate eating balls!
The current HOT formula is [total BTC / sqrt(time since post)] correct? This would mean something really old would be better off being reposted if there was a resurgence of interest.
It could be (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + ...
So that if something starts getting paid a lot again it doesn't have the baggage of being old (which would just make someone make a duplicate posting anyway). In fact under the current setup (if I understand correctly) it would pay for someone to go around making copies of all content that was still getting paid but was somewhat old because their copy could get above the original somewhat cheaply and start earning the influx of new money on it.
It could be (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + ...
So that if something starts getting paid a lot again it doesn't have the baggage of being old (which would just make someone make a duplicate posting anyway). In fact under the current setup (if I understand correctly) it would pay for someone to go around making copies of all content that was still getting paid but was somewhat old because their copy could get above the original somewhat cheaply and start earning the influx of new money on it.
Very clever, I like it. It will require a little block parsing, but it would make for a great weighting system.
The current HOT formula is [total BTC / sqrt(time since post)] correct? This would mean something really old would be better off being reposted if there was a resurgence of interest.
It could be (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + ...
So that if something starts getting paid a lot again it doesn't have the baggage of being old (which would just make someone make a duplicate posting anyway). In fact under the current setup (if I understand correctly) it would pay for someone to go around making copies of all content that was still getting paid but was somewhat old because their copy could get above the original somewhat cheaply and start earning the influx of new money on it.
Very good point. +1, I agree with this formula change. Make the time based on when payments were made, not when the post was made. It could be (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + ...
So that if something starts getting paid a lot again it doesn't have the baggage of being old (which would just make someone make a duplicate posting anyway). In fact under the current setup (if I understand correctly) it would pay for someone to go around making copies of all content that was still getting paid but was somewhat old because their copy could get above the original somewhat cheaply and start earning the influx of new money on it.
The current HOT formula is [total BTC / sqrt(time since post)] correct? This would mean something really old would be better off being reposted if there was a resurgence of interest.
It could be (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + ...
So that if something starts getting paid a lot again it doesn't have the baggage of being old (which would just make someone make a duplicate posting anyway). In fact under the current setup (if I understand correctly) it would pay for someone to go around making copies of all content that was still getting paid but was somewhat old because their copy could get above the original somewhat cheaply and start earning the influx of new money on it.
It could be (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + (payment/sqrt(time since this payment) + ...
So that if something starts getting paid a lot again it doesn't have the baggage of being old (which would just make someone make a duplicate posting anyway). In fact under the current setup (if I understand correctly) it would pay for someone to go around making copies of all content that was still getting paid but was somewhat old because their copy could get above the original somewhat cheaply and start earning the influx of new money on it.
I think charging even .001 for posting is bad. Finding great stuff and showing it to us is now a great way for someone to get their first coins. If spam gets to be a problem make a checkbox for "hide 0BTC items"
Posting is free, but will only show up under "newest" listing. For something to be "hot" on the front page, it needs to receive btc.Right, people are worried that new stuff will get burrieds in a deluge of "asdadjh" and "Eat my butt" and "xxxxxxxYYYYYY" spam postings. If you want to see the new, even the low ones without seeing the totally useless 0 ones a checkbox would be good. This would also give people (posters and others) incentive to make that first tiny payment to distinguish a post they like from the trash.
I think charging even .001 for posting is bad. Finding great stuff and showing it to us is now a great way for someone to get their first coins. If spam gets to be a problem make a checkbox for "hide 0BTC items"
Posting is free, but will only show up under "newest" listing. For something to be "hot" on the front page, it needs to receive btc.
When will payments go out?
Is it easy to show the upvote address before the poster gives the payout address?
Or simpler, a checkbox for "send my payments back as upvotes". They you should not bother doing the payments in the chain and just give 5x credit and take the whole thing as fee.
Is it easy to show the upvote address before the poster gives the payout address?
Or simpler, a checkbox for "send my payments back as upvotes". They you should not bother doing the payments in the chain and just give 5x credit and take the whole thing as fee.
There was in the original design a down button. Down votes were counted twice what up votes were counted, and nothing went to the poster. The down vote would be another address for the post.
You are completely missing the point.
When staring at the facebook "like" icon, how often have you wished for a "dislike" icon that might link to a "hatebook" instead?
If you are me, this occurs several times a day. I have no facebook page, but I am ready to sign up for hatebook right now.
Your site's potential profitability is directly proportional to the amount of attention paid to it. Hateful stuff attracts attention.
I propose that you monetize social network connections emerging from common hate. This is an under-exploited niche in my view.
I think charging even .001 for posting is bad. Finding great stuff and showing it to us is now a great way for someone to get their first coins. If spam gets to be a problem make a checkbox for "hide 0BTC items"
Quote
Widget to add the coinsmack.com thumbs up to external websites
This would be great, but it seems like a huge security risk. Is there some way to make sure the site hosting the widget doesn't switch out addresses? It wouldn't seem so.
I plan on giving them a cut of the action as well. Also, the widget would be to vote up their stuff, and make it more popular on coinsmack. This would benefit them (probably more than being a scammer).
I think it would be more of a reputation risk for them rather than a security risk for myself (I wouldn't lose much because of them BSing on their website).
That makes sense.
For those that are interested, I added RSS feeds to all lists on the site.
So you can have your rss reader track the newest, hotest, or top items in any category.
So you can have your rss reader track the newest, hotest, or top items in any category.
One thought I've had as I've been watching this site...
It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead. I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins? It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.
What's the solution? I haven't a clue. You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place. You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway. Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.
Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner? So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003. Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050. This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.
Just some thoughts. I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.
It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead. I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins? It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.
What's the solution? I haven't a clue. You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place. You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway. Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.
Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner? So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003. Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050. This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.
Just some thoughts. I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.
That is a pretty good idea. I might not change the display (it is good to know the exact amount put in), but I may adjust the sorting algorithm for hot to do something like this (anti-exponent). Time is a huge factor right now as well. It is easy to spend a little to get on top of something from a day or two ago.
I am surprised that people are spending the equivalent of $1 to put dinosaur pictures up on the home page, but I like it. I was afraid it would just be ads.
One thought I've had as I've been watching this site...
It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead. I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins? It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.
What's the solution? I haven't a clue. You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place. You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway. Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.
Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner? So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003. Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050. This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.
Just some thoughts. I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.
It feels as though "votes" of 0.001 are rather ineffective/useless when several people seem to be voting with 0.1 (or more) instead. I mean, if a single person can give an item 100 votes, then why even vote on anything with my own coins? It'll be ineffective unless I spent like "the big boys" do.
What's the solution? I haven't a clue. You can't really raise the limit, or that just alienates more people from voting in the first place. You could just say that each individual transaction counts as one vote, regardless of how much the transaction was for, but that kind of takes some of the fun out of it, plus people would use sendmany to send a bunch of individual transactions to pop up the vote count anyway. Plus, it would lower the site/author revenue.
Maybe have the payments upvote in an anti-exponential manner? So a vote with 0.001 BTC counts as 0.001, but a vote with 0.009 BTC counts only as 0.003. Or a vote with 0.250 BTC counts only as 0.050. This would discourage higher "spending" to an extent, but not make it impossible for people who really want to push a vote up to do so.
Just some thoughts. I don't know that there's a real good solution to the above "problem", or even that it is a problem that needs a solution, but that's just my observations.
That is a pretty good idea. I might not change the display (it is good to know the exact amount put in), but I may adjust the sorting algorithm for hot to do something like this (anti-exponent). Time is a huge factor right now as well. It is easy to spend a little to get on top of something from a day or two ago.
I am surprised that people are spending the equivalent of $1 to put dinosaur pictures up on the home page, but I like it. I was afraid it would just be ads.
Clever. At least it wasn't a more malicious attack.
There really isn't a whole lot of maliciousness that can be done on the site. The db works on an insert only basis, so nothing is every overwritten, and there is no sensitive data on the machine (no passwords, private keys, etc).
Mostly users can only do some front end funkyness, and I think this is the only place I didn't sanitize what was entered (I built the select element directly from stuff from the db like a fool).
Clever. At least it wasn't a more malicious attack.
Jump to: