A Feature Requesst: Anti-Sponsorship
Created on: September 27th, 2006
This is a serious suggestion, submitted for the review of the YTMND community. I think Max, and YTMND would benefit from the bidding wars that are sure to ensue.
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| fatelvis04 | $20.00 | tarkaan | $10.38 |
| SadameMusouka | $4.55 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $34.93 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.04) | 1,270 | 13 | 557 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27,152 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 47 | https://www.bing.com |
| 4 | https://7ooo.ru/ |
| 3 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 3 | http://7ooo.ru/forum/ |
| 2 | http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=www |
I like this idea. Don't even keep track of who did the counter-sponsorship, then there will be a rise in "downations", and people counter-donating against each other, and then people will start having wars about who can counter-donate the most and the whole time, Max is like "and on the seventh day, I rested"
The only problem is that the "bidding war" will never take place. The same people have typically sponsored sites, and if their money goes to waste they will simply cease. If bidding were a more common practice and the ytmnd population made up of mostly of people that have graduated high school this would be possible, but it just won't work.
I fear it might lead to less sponsorship too- perhaps a limited beta-test is in order? Try it out for awhile with new sponsorships, and see if it actually has a negative impact. Perhaps it could not be a 1:1 ratio. To knock a site down by $1, you'd have to pay $2, or something. There's lots of room to flex it. Like I said, it's just an idea.
Oh, and n4rvst? DIAF downvoter.
um.... nice idea but, your being hipocritical... why are you against religion? I mean, if your an atheist then why do you care if someone believes something else. I mean, according to you, it doesn't matter what we do because when we die, thats it. So why do you care if someone has a religion. I mean, if in your opinion it doesn't matter either way, then let people be religious. Why do you have to be oppressive to people with beliefs, imposing your own.. uhh... non-beliefs on others. Furthermore, it might
be counter-productive, Strinka has a point. Sorry but I didn't like your anti-religious freedom attitude and your arrogant way of pulling this off as well as the slanted reasoning. So, good sir, I'm afraid I won't vote. If I did then that might make me seem a hippocrit, as I would downvote due to me being offended. So I give you a figurative 1 but not one that will be tallyed.
I think this idea would do more harm than good. You get points having an original idea for the problem though. I just ignore everything that appears on the Sponsored Sites anyway. I spend most of my time on YTMND clicking on Worthwhile and Upcoming YTMNDs. If anything on the Sponsored list is worth my time it'll eventually work it's way to one of the other lists.
People sponsor sites to get them views, but they don't sponsor them to give them views... for 20 seconds at a time. If people keep getting their sites downated quickly, then donations will go to 0. At least, people that donate to sites that get downvoted because of some highly polarizing issue (which is probably the #1 reason sites get sponsored, after max asking for money, of course). Rarely do people sponsor sites "just so that they can be seen" or something like that.
*censored* christians, and how christians are gay/f*gs/homosexual etc. ( Did you catch the irony yet?) So, in those of you who blindly flame and lay judgements down without consifdering anything (hint: BANDWAGON) as well as offendding people just for the reason of wanting to offend someone, I am utterly ashamed. In all fairness some of you have utterly failed at empathy and understanding, as well as a fair view. once more I will say: I am ashamed in your behaviour!
If people would actually stop flaming each other in this thread, we might be having a good discussion... I like the idea, but since people sponsor sites in order to get views, I agree that sponsorships would probably decline if other people were paying not to see them. Especially if the YTMND has a small donater base (e.g. Infidels?), people will get frustrated and cease donating altogether--giving YTMND less money.
I wouldn't want to keep paying $2 to get my YTMND sponsored, only to have it downated 30 seconds later. Maybe it'd be better if there was a "Contested" section or something where donation wars were being waged? That way the YTMND still gets views, but it could be ranked higher or lower depending on the competition from donators and downators. Just an idea.
I'm all for this. It's voting on a monetary level. At the moment, all anyone can do is "upvote" with their money. Using money to "downvote" is equally valid. This could potentially result in more money coming in, as people pay "up" and others pay "down", making the original people possibly decide to pay "up" again... and the others decide to pay "down" once more.
Thus resulting in a money war that makes YTMND more profits overall.
YTMND + Money = goodtimesyayhappydance.
In response to mouseman, empathy is a completely flawed conception and has no place in a place like ytmnd. Some people are very touchy while others have skin of steel. You can't possibly feel anyone else's emotions on a site like this, so each person is responsible for handling their own emotions. This is text. This is not a voice screaming in your ear, and you can merely choose not to read whatever you can't handle.
As for this idea, I think it is (if you do a bit of analysis as to the incentives) deeply flawed in that it would drive down sponsorship regardless of its form. As is, it is a good way to get an outside opinion into the spotlight. I have no problem with whetstone having a sposnored religious site, but I do have a problem with the extreme disregard for honest discussion. Luckily, there is a forum to air these problems and I, along with other people, did just that. Amazing how it all works, isn't it?
There's a big problem with the idea. While it's a good concept, the problem of course is that it defeats the purpose of sponsoring. Not to mention anyone with a few cents could just end the whole thing by sponsoring random YTMNDs with a penny to as many sites as it takes to get the other sponsored ones in the little sponsored area taken out.
You don't even have to get random sites, you can give to ones already up there to push the ones you don't like a bit lower. What's more is this compounds itself productively when other people upvote sites to cover the ones you used to cover. People already have to worry about people going over the top of them anyway, so there's no added risk factor.
"If you don't like sponsored sites, then why don't you just not view
them? Also i'm not sure why you would sponsor a site solely because of
the existance of another site. To me, it just seems kind of childish." It's because of politics. While very childish, it is also the way the world works. And, unforunately, it is also the way the world workds.
I got a problem...there are also idiots that will desponsers good sites that get sponsored. Others may just unsponsor sites just to get their own sites up on the list. The best thing to be done is if a site is stupid and all, the site gets deleted and the original sponsors are moved to a site of one's choice.
The incentive to sponsor a site is lost if someone else can negate or lessen what you paid. However, if the feature were to be implemented, I'd like to see the total sponsorships categorized into "Donated," "Downated," "Total Sponsorships," and "Net Sponsorships." The net sponsorship would determine which sites are listed on the front page, but the total sponsorships would show the amount raised for YTMND, since it all goes to the site whether it was positive or negative.
Furthermore, I think there is significant potential for abuse. Certain users (i.e. Whetstone) could easily become victims of "downating," regardless of the quality of their sites. I can see the comments now: "Whetstone = auto -$5" The best way to get one you don't like off the front page is sponsor one you do like.
Someone already suggested this a long time ago, and I didn't approve then... and I still don't now. If there is a site you don't like - sponsor some sites you DO like, and they will push the old sponsored site off the list if your sponsored sites are worth more. Basically, what I'm saying here is this: If you think a sponsored site is bad, at least replace it with something else to prove you have something better to show the community.
I agree with ytmnd1337. Users like Whetstone would be instantly victimized and their sites pushed so far down the hole they'd never see the light of day. That's effectively majoritarian censorship--so unless there were a categorization system in place to counteract that (still giving the site some visibility), then I don't think this idea flies. If there were some way to guarantee visibility even when downated, that might work. But that kinda defeats the purpose of altering the current system anyway.
Even though this site was made mostly to stop me from getting Whetstone's sites on the front page; I think I have to agree with it somewhat. However, I do think there would be a problem with people choosing not to sponsor because they know somone else might counter it. I know I wouldn't sponsor anymore; which although is what you guys want, I have given $100 to Max.
I just want to see a "delete" feature, where if a site is ranked poorly enough, and gets enough downvotes, KABLAMMO!! The site is deleted, and replaced with a "You suck, try again" sort of page. (like the 404 page). It could even be a contest to create the new "You suck, try again" page.
Just think of all the bandwidth max would save by people not clicking on crap they don't want to see anyway.
If I know YTMND, there would be a massive army of downators, much larger than the donators could ever keep up with, making the whole system pointless. The only point of this idea is to spite other people, if it were somehow implemented in a way where you could pay for non donated sites you didnt like to get even less visibility, then it might have a little validity, but if all its for is taking certain sites off of the most donated list, its nothing but a hateful, spiteful, all around stupid idea.
"I just want to see a "delete" feature, where if a site is ranked poorly enough, and gets enough downvotes, KABLAMMO!! The site is deleted, and replaced with a "You suck, try again" sort of page. (like the 404 page)." ...Me too. Check out max's todo file, you'll be pleasantly surprised. http://ytmnd.com/TODO
No. That would invalidate the money people donated to the sites in the first place. Sure YTMND would have more money, but that's not the point.
Also, don't f*cking view the sites if you don't like them. Let the Christians think they're better and let the athiests be douches, it doesn't matter.
I think all religious/anti-religious stuff should be taken down, so both athiests and religious folks can be happy.
Then it's no use to sponsor anyway, because there will always be people who doesn't like the ytmnd. It's a dangerous idea. It's more likely to stop people from sponsoring the site than starting sponsor wars. It would also give unfair advantages. If a sponsored site is bad in your view, just 1-vote it. Everyone has the right to talk and sponsor sites.
It's not that I don't agree with Whetstone, I'm chrsitian. But you're right, YTMND shouldn't have religious crap on it. But "Anti-Sponsorship" I don't think is such a great idea, because, I mean, doesn't it seem kind of... unfair, I guess, to make people reduce the money that THEY want to give because YOU don't like the YTMND? It's their money, and if they want to be idiots with it, I guess we can't stop that.
I agree with your point about the sites, but absolutely not about your proposition. This is not right. It's counter-productive. Whose going to want to sponsor anything when you know someone out there is going to counter-act it? It makes peoples good money worthless. If someone pays money to help the site run, then god damnit, let them have their page up there. It's not fair to the people who donate. This deserves a total one for your willingness to use your money to harm people.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link