- This topic has 86 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
yeah, that sounds like a great workflow, I don't see any issues with it. Hope to see this on the site soon 😀
@Queensknight
Spot on... 🙂Would this also flag if a requestor did not have sufficient points for the item - to avoid sending links that cannot be 'paid' for?
Already had this a few times.Pretty sure you need the points in the first place to put them into the escrow, so that's almost certainly a non-issue.
@fuzzy3000 yes, in that a Requestor's points are deducted immediately when they make their offer to join the request. If they want to offer X points but don't have X points, they can't join (or create) the request in the first place.
That's the whole point of the escrow system--it assures both parties in the transaction that the points are in trust with a third party (the escrow account).
It also implies that people won't be as free to offer points on everything they see, depending on their points balance. I expect it will make people a bit more selective in what items they choose to commit their points to request, especially folks who don't have a lot of points to begin with.
I expect there will be considerable "re-prioritization" of offers as newer, more interesting items become more appealing and people with small points balances are forced to decide which existing offers to cancel in order to free up more points to use for the latest shiny thing.
In the longer term I expect this to encourage people to build larger point balances, which entails sharing more items (whether as request fills or blog posts). Those who share more will do well under this system, while the so-called "leechers" will find it more difficult to get what they want here.
@Queensknight will it allow ppl to remain anon ? who filled the request.
@itsmenotyou, yes, the Filler has the option of remaining anonymous--a simple checkbox they can tick at the time they provide the download links, and the delay (in days) before auto-posting the item to the blog.
Moderators will be able to see the Filler's identity, of course, as this is necessary for resolving any issues with the fill, but Requestors don't need to know anything about the Filler.
As for the identities of the Requestors, in theory they could be anonymous as well, but I think this would be a bad idea.
Anonymity on the Requestor side would encourage people to offer the minimum required, as there would be no embarrassment associated with an insultingly low offer. Similarly, people make generous offers when their largesse can be seen by others, so anonymity removes that incentive.
Overall, anonymity on the Requestor side would lead to lower point offers, and hence a reduced incentive for Fillers to go out and spend their cash.
There is potential to use this Requestor data to create things like a "Leaderboard" that could rank members by their total points spent on (successful) fills, say, or total number of successfully-supported fills, etc. There should be incentives for offering more than the bare minimum, and the data will now exist to support such things.
@itsmenotyou, yes, that's the idea. Request fills were always meant to make their way to the blog "eventually', but this hasn't always happened, and it has been the source of much frustration (as evidenced by this very thread).
Whether it happens because Fillers forget or lose track of which fills are due to be posted, or because a Filler wants to milk a request for points for as long as possible, it goes against the general expectations here.
Automating the scheduling of the blog posting is just designed to make the process easier by eliminating an extra step. The default delay of 7 days can be adjusted up to 14 days by the Filler, but there is no option to not publish.
Oh so that means that even with an inactive filler, people would still be able to get the items as long as the links are alive? That is great news.
I hope the mods or someone else can also replace the dead link in case the filler is inactive.I see so there will most likely be a drop in requests getting filled , not everyone wants their purchases going into the wind for various reasons.
Well, to be clear, nothing prevents people who don't like the new system from continuing to use the forums and PMs to do things the old fashioned way.
That said, I don't think the folks in this community have ever really wanted to encourage the "private sharing" mentality. I was asked specifically to implement this auto-posting feature, so my sense is that private sharing has been seen as a problem (rather than an intended feature).
Would you elaborate a bit about some of those "various reasons" you mentioned, @itsmenotyou? If there is a compelling reason for private sharing that hasn't been considered, this would seem to be the perfect thread for it.
If everything is going to be shared then I think there need to be more incentive for people to go from just leeching to sharing if they can just get everything in 14 days, otherwise all the burden will be on the few people that share.
At the moment I have seen some people make 2 or 3 extra accounts and just send themselves points to get all the blog posts for free.
So a rebalancing of blog post cost/daily income would probably be needed and deterrent to people having multiple accounts and sending points to themself.@Queensknight
Overall - can't wait for this...
Only one dissapointing reveal - that the option to still use the standard method for sharing.
Allowing members to opt out of this new system will still give some the ability to continue their 'selective sharing' even though this is, as stated in the rules, a Sharing Site.
a delay in posting to the blog is fine, but those that do not want to share should go elsewhere... 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
