All my dreams! Thanks! On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan Roberts < > robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Stephen. This is extremely helpful. How do I access a site map so I > don't have to keep asking these kinds of questions? The only way I know to > find these pages right now is to stumble through a chain of clickable terms > starting at the home page till I get to the relevant page. > > > It's not everything, but the wiki directory covers a lot: > https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Jonathan Roberts < >> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Mray, I hear your concern; you don't want people to be "tricked" into >> buying into this system or to do it because it's a fun gimmick. However, I >> don't think this representation crosses that line. I think it is a blunt >> presentation of why this system is so effective. Yes, some people will feel >> things about it that aren't as idealistic as we want people to feel. So it >> goes. >> >> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits is super helpful and >> contains really well thought out possibilities >> >> Again...I know this is a new question and maybe it deserves a new thread, >> but is there any discussion about paying for a high volume of transfers of >> very small amounts of money? >> >> >> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/transactions >> >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:43 PM, mray <m...@mray.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 18.10.2015 21:18, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On 10/18/2015 12:09 PM, mray wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 18.10.2015 09:47, Jacob Chapman wrote: >>> >>> https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n >>> >>> >>> >>> We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to >>> encourage >>> >>> patrons to pledge. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> The problem with the match factor is that it is always the same, so >>> >> there is no real benefit in constantly reminding a user what it is. >>> >> It also is just an invitation to start calculating in the head - which >>> >> I'd like to avoid at all costs. >>> >> >>> > >>> > To be clear: despite your wishes for simplicity, we have not come to a >>> > consensus about the idea of removing the ability to pledge lower or >>> > higher levels. I recognize that the complexity of people pledging at >>> > levels above the minimum is an issue, but I still feel that there are a >>> > wide range of levels of wealth and it just does *not* make sense to >>> > ignore that and force everyone to only have a single pledge level. All >>> > other patronage models that people will compare to have different >>> levels >>> > of donation for wealthier or less wealthy patrons. >>> > >>> > If we accept, as I still feel we should, that the pledge is X per >>> patron >>> > rather than everyone at the identical minimum pledge, then the amount >>> of >>> > matching *isn't* absolutely fixed. Wealthier pledges mean more matching >>> > for new patrons. >>> >>> My point is that even with a changing match factor your interaction >>> remains binary: either you pledge (your amount X) or you don't. >>> >>> > >>> >> We should not make people calculate. >>> >> >>> >> They should see what is happening and what the results of their >>> possible >>> >> action would be, and formulas don't really lend themselves neither to >>> >> emphasize nor to encourage (at least the vast majority). >>> >> >>> > >>> > I agree that we should have no formulas and calculation factors. We >>> > should just show that you pledging means $Y more for the project and >>> > costs you $X. In other words, it's a *big* deal to actually learn that >>> > at this lower cost, you are effectively getting this *specific* higher >>> > amount of funds to the project. >>> >>> I don't see a particular benefit from this. there is just not enough >>> variation. The information starts being relevant only in cases where >>> people substantially diverge from the average. For everybody else it >>> will always turn out to be: What you give gets doubled by the community. >>> >>> > >>> > We want people to think is "I get the project $15 more dollars, and I >>> > only had to chip in $6! Thanks everyone, all you 2,470 others! I'm so >>> > glad we're all working together to support this!" >>> >>> I don't think we want that at all. This makes it sound as if this is a >>> big bragain. This fallacious good feeling is entirely based on the naive >>> idea that you will never be asked to give more yourself - maybe way >>> beyond $15 dollar. >>> We should never even play with the idea to appear as if there are some >>> interesting bargains! At the contrary: we need to make clear that people >>> should feel great to be able to pay more for their project since it is >>> guaranteed to be part of a true difference, rather than a nice gesture. >>> >>> > >>> > None of that includes doing calculations, it's merely: "I'm chipping >>> in, >>> > others are chipping in *because* they're happy I'm included, and all of >>> > us together are helping." >>> >>> I totally agree on this notion. >>> >>> > >>> >> I do share your concern that the current illustration isn't good >>> enough. >>> >> Displaying each donor via an icon does not clarify each one matches >>> the >>> >> other. >>> >> I'm going to try alternatives. >>> >> >>> >>> Also I suggest we use /mo rather than /mth. >>> >> >>> >> Ok. It didn't occur to me that there was an inconsistency. >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jacob >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Design mailing list >>> >>> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop >>> >>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Design mailing list >>> >> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop >>> >> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Design mailing list >>> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop >>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Design mailing list >> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop >> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > Design@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > >
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
