Something awful user did a hack on the site where they injected a close tag into the category selector, preventing other users from posting for a while.
It isn't a meaningful site until something awful hacks it.
Topic: Digg/Reddit like News site. Voting is based on Bitcoins! - page 3. (Read 8841 times)
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.
Great idea 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.
Why am I just hearing about this? This has potential
Holy cow! It is already #11 on hacker news!
I think there are two major problems and a couple minor ones.
1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.
2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.
a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)
b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.
c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.
1) Maybe wait til there is a problem with spam posts? I agree that sending a small amount of Bitcoin would be a prime way to keep bots out though.1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.
2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.
a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)
b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.
c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.
2) Agreed, can't hurt to have QR codes.
a) Eh? You can vote something up for 0.001 BTC. Less than a penny. Is that really a lot?
b) Agreed. All the serif fonts on the site need to be changed to sans-serif. Serif looks terrible on webpages.
c) Agreed.
I think there are two major problems and a couple minor ones.
1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.
2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.
a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)
b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.
c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.
1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.
2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.
a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)
b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.
c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.
I love the #1 idea. Not too keen on the lottery idea, though. Sorry, dree12. +1 for b & c.
Keep the suggestion flowing on this service. I feel it has great potential for Bitcoin.
~Bruno~
I think there are two major problems and a couple minor ones.
1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.
2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.
a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)
b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.
c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.
1) There is no cost to creating a new post. This allows a submitter to add spam posts with no value. Minimum donation of 0.001 should be required.
2) The QR code is missing where one would expect it in the send-to address.
a) Voting things up costs a lot. If it is possible, maybe the owner's share can be reduced to 50% and the 30% be added to a lottery until it grows big enough to pay out to a random voter (proportionally, of course)
b) The X is the close button looks terrible, primarily because it is a serif font. ✕ or ✖, and even ✘ would be better replacements. If for some reason that is not possible, the font should be changed to sans-serif.
c) The website is missing a !DOCTYPE. This is the only thing preventing it from working in Internet Explorer, but is otherwise fairly minor.
Also, please vote up on hacker news:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507448
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3507448
isn't Reddit open-source or something ?
The comments have to be branched to make it look like reddit.
The comments have to be branched to make it look like reddit.
It does that already:
http://coinsmack.com/posts/Gaming/T-Rex-vs-Kong (has a nested comment)
Keep in mind it is like reddit/digg/hacker news, but it isn't using any of the same code and has some of its own quirks.
isn't Reddit open-source or something ?
The comments have to be branched to make it look like reddit.
The comments have to be branched to make it look like reddit.
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).
With up only you'll get things that a small subset really like no matter what other people think. This is good for exposing people to new stuff instead of just stuff that a good number already know and like and no one really objects to. It seems bad to have things that a lot of people love and a lot of people hate get lost in the middle.
A neat way to not have to decide would be to Have "most up", "most down", "net" categories. I actually think I'd look at "most down" quite a lot.
A neat way to not have to decide would be to Have "most up", "most down", "net" categories. I actually think I'd look at "most down" quite a lot.
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 can't stand all this liking and tweeting bullshit. Everyone knows that the internets feed on hate. Research shows that common hates produce stronger social bonds than common likes. But where is hate monetized on the internets. Like if I suggest something and gamble that everyone will think it is worth hating on. If they hate on it in sufficient number I get paid. If not I lose my deposit. Then a great repository of hate can be built. Sort of like the library of Alexandria.
If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
Hm. How about a site that allows you to pay to drive the item DOWN instead of up? Then you can monetize in both directions! If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
Take it one step further. Vote a premium to have the story forked to the feature page. May have to implement restrictions like a story must have X votes prior to being allowed to fork.
I can't stand all this liking and tweeting bullshit. Everyone knows that the internets feed on hate. Research shows that common hates produce stronger social bonds than common likes. But where is hate monetized on the internets. Like if I suggest something and gamble that everyone will think it is worth hating on. If they hate on it in sufficient number I get paid. If not I lose my deposit. Then a great repository of hate can be built. Sort of like the library of Alexandria.
If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
I think this article may be related to your post, cunicula: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9034883/McDonalds-McDStories-Twitter-campaign-backfires.html
I can't stand all this liking and tweeting bullshit. Everyone knows that the internets feed on hate. Research shows that common hates produce stronger social bonds than common likes. But where is hate monetized on the internets. Like if I suggest something and gamble that everyone will think it is worth hating on. If they hate on it in sufficient number I get paid. If not I lose my deposit. Then a great repository of hate can be built. Sort of like the library of Alexandria.
If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
Hm. How about a site that allows you to pay to drive the item DOWN instead of up? Then you can monetize in both directions! If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
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.
Some of the code is still there, and I may institute it if people start voting up hateful stuff.
I took it out out of optimism. I would rather assume that people are just going to post positive stuff and let them prove me right.
Otherwise I reserve the right to lay the algorithmic smack down.
I am not sure what I would do with the 80% for downvotes (I don't think it is right for me to take all of it). I might just have it credited to the current hotest poster (but it wouldn't effect their post's ranking or points).
So much stuff to grit your teeth over.
Perhaps something like a hate ponzi would be good. I propose something to be hated, and people wishing to support the hatred can contribute to the hate pot. It works just like a regular ponzi, except that there is an associated news item, article, picture, etc. which acts as a signaling device. If I put up an effective signal which marshals mega-hate then my ponzi will do well and payoff. If my signal fails to mobilize hate then I will lose the money.
I can't stand all this liking and tweeting bullshit. Everyone knows that the internets feed on hate. Research shows that common hates produce stronger social bonds than common likes. But where is hate monetized on the internets. Like if I suggest something and gamble that everyone will think it is worth hating on. If they hate on it in sufficient number I get paid. If not I lose my deposit. Then a great repository of hate can be built. Sort of like the library of Alexandria.
If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
Hm. How about a site that allows you to pay to drive the item DOWN instead of up? Then you can monetize in both directions! If trolling could be monetized that would be good too.
A 2nd address should be added to vote down the topic.
Jump to: