Regarding power points for dead fixes
I think it's a bad mechanic to not give power points when you fix dead videos if your own power points have recharged recently. I wanted to earn one now, so that I could frontpage berticus' earthquake talk post ( http://humanitarian.videosift.com/talk/Earthquake ), but I couldn't.
This is bad.
It tells me to not go and fix videos, but wait until I get something back for it.
It is foolish to expect users, especially gamers, to do something like this, essentially a chore, for "free" for the good of the community, we might as well give people incentives to do it.
It may be ripe for abuse, since we can earn lots and lots of points in a row potentially, but isn't that worth it? If someone fixes 100 videos, then they've earned those 100 power points - and the community wins, because 100 less videos are dead.
Opinions?
This is bad.
It tells me to not go and fix videos, but wait until I get something back for it.
It is foolish to expect users, especially gamers, to do something like this, essentially a chore, for "free" for the good of the community, we might as well give people incentives to do it.
It may be ripe for abuse, since we can earn lots and lots of points in a row potentially, but isn't that worth it? If someone fixes 100 videos, then they've earned those 100 power points - and the community wins, because 100 less videos are dead.
Opinions?
14 Comments
StingrayI agree with our Royal King Dickhead.
kymbosA lack of incentives is the main reason I don't get into dead fixes. If we're worried about the reward being too great, then make it 2 fixes per point, or 3 or 5...
gwiz665^If we do that, then I really, really think there should be a bar where you can see your progress.
Videosift - a great way to fill bars.
I want to gamify the sift as much as possible.
kronosposeidonI think the logic behind the current functionality is this: If any gold star member or above can earn three power points just by fixing dead videos, then there would be a lot more frontpaged Sift Talks and blog posts. In other words they made it deliberately difficult, so that there wouldn't be a procession of one frontpaged post after another. I understand that decision, but I do agree that we should put bert's post on the frontpage.
FusionautAs you wish, your highness.
RyjkyjThe problem is that if you offer power points for dead video fixes, then people will just go around putting whatever embed into the site that they want. There's not really a way to check up on dead fixes unless it's a popular video that gets watched all the time. I could just go to any dead vid, use two keywords to search youtube and post whatever crap came up. Even if it's the same clip, it can be crap quality or missing the things the poster was trying to include.
blankfistIncentives? You mean like greed? What's going to stop the corporations from taking over VideoSift once they've amassed a thousand power points and hire an army and kills us all?!
No, I think we should force people to fix their fair share of dead videos under threat of expulsion. It's the only protection we have from a corporate takeover.
gwiz665Incentives drive the world. Even the most liberal people know this, that's why there's social engineering. "Fat tax" is just an incentive to buy healthier food, because it's cheaper. Smoking tax is just an incentive to stop smoking and to rake in money. All those social engineering "Do as we want you to do" taxes are incentives. They understand. They just apply it poorly.
>> ^blankfist:
Incentives? You mean like greed? What's going to stop the corporations from taking over VideoSift once they've amassed a thousand power points and hire an army and kills us all?!
No, I think we should force people to fix their fair share of dead videos under threat of expulsion. It's the only protection we have from a corporate takeover.
gwiz665I understand this problem, but I think the solution is a poor one. Just saying "you won't get anything for this" makes me go "fuck that then". And that's a bad thing, because if it makes me do that, it makes others do that, and then the whole idea of dead fixes is undermined or at least slowed a great deal.
I would be better to just get like 20 % of a power point, represented as a bar on your profile. Every time you hit 100 %, you get a new power point. If you really, really want to limit them, to can change the the fraction you get every time, so the first 2-3 points in a day is easy, but it gets harder and harder. And reset it once a day or something.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I think the logic behind the current functionality is this: If any gold star member or above can earn three power points just by fixing dead videos, then there would be a lot more frontpaged Sift Talks and blog posts. In other words they made it deliberately difficult, so that there wouldn't be a procession of one frontpaged post after another. I understand that decision, but I do agree that we should put bert's post on the frontpage.
blankfist@gwiz665, then let's apply some of those "central planning" coercions here. If you don't fix at least one dead video a day, your power points won't recharge and you'll lose 1 star point. That'll incentivize them to do their fair share!
While we're at it, those with more than two power points saved up should share those with members who have little or no power points. Some of us can Sift up to 6 videos at a time, which is also unfair to those who can only Sift 3 videos at a time. We should even the playing field by taking one video spot from each person who has six and giving it over to those less fortunate.
If members don't like these changes, they can leave VideoSift. It's a big internet out there with lots of places for the members to go. We need social justice, and we need it now!
dagComment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I think we should all do it collectively in our VideoSift collective to better serve the Sift Motherland. If you are not pulling your weight - we may put you in a virtual gulag. a "Siftlag" if you will.
But seriously, these are some valid points - and we are currently looking at the whole powerpoints system with a possible redistribution of powerpoints wealth in store for the future. Oh, and legalised Sift marriages to anyone, or anything - even to inanimate objects ... like say an old rusty flour sifter, for example.
siftbotFinally...
>> ^dag:
Oh, and legalised Sift marriages to anyone, or anything - even to inanimate objects ... like say an old rusty flour sifter, for example.
kymbosOn this, I wanted to suggest a structural redistribution of power points towards me, because... well, I'd just like some more of them. Please.
I'll let others detail the mechanism, and the rationale. But I must stress, in the end, I get more powerpoints.
gwiz665See, that's what I mean about poor implementation. The concept is understood, but implemented poorly. Reward is more fun than punishment. Being rewarded for doing something beneficial is fine, being punished for doing something that's detrimental is not as fine.
>> ^blankfist:
@gwiz665, then let's apply some of those "central planning" coercions here. If you don't fix at least one dead video a day, your power points won't recharge and you'll lose 1 star point. That'll incentivize them to do their fair share!
While we're at it, those with more than two power points saved up should share those with members who have little or no power points. Some of us can Sift up to 6 videos at a time, which is also unfair to those who can only Sift 3 videos at a time. We should even the playing field by taking one video spot from each person who has six and giving it over to those less fortunate.
If members don't like these changes, they can leave VideoSift. It's a big internet out there with lots of places for the members to go. We need social justice, and we need it now!
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.