On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Michael Siepmann <m...@techdesignpsych.com> wrote:

On 12/01/2016 07:52 AM, mray wrote:
 On 30.11.2016 07:30, Aaron Wolf wrote:
tentative 4a. "Our innovative platform empowers you to join with others
 to fund the public goods /you/ care about."

tentative 4b. "At Snowdrift.coop, you collaborate with others to build
 greater support for public goods."

 I'm not happy with either 4, but the meaning I want to say here is:
Snowdrift.coop (or "out platform" or similar subject) is about getting everyone to collaborate to address question just asked (i.e. to fund public goods). It's nice to emphasize that the users get to choose, but
 not sure that needs to be in 4. The only core thing is THIS (our
platform) is for collaborative funding of public goods. Still need best
 wording for that.

 Just "collaboration" does not capture what we are about. Like-minded
 people can collaborate without us. We offer a *NEW* way to do so.
 A short take that bridges to the following explanation:

 my tentative 4c.
   At Snowdrift.coop everybody collaborates in a new way;

I think "empowers" and "/you/ care about" are important. I don't like
"collaborate" because it sounds like something that would take /time/
that I cannot spare, vs. just a simple decision to share a small amount of my money. Overall I think 4b is much too abstract and vague - "build
greater support for" is vague, as is the generic reference to  "public
goods". It sounds to me like something I might agree that some committee
somewhere ought to do, but that doesn't sound particularly exciting or
engaging to me personally.

I also like "empowers" and "you care about". If we want to make it less wordy, I think we can drop "Our innovative platform" and just say "Snowdrift.coop" or "Crowdmatching".

Aaron, can you say more about in what ways you're not happy with 4a? I think tweaking 4a a bit is a much more promising direction than anything
like 4b.
tentative 5a. "You do this with a simple pledge to the projects you care about: 'I'll donate $1 for every 1,000 patrons who pledge with me!' And you control your overall pledges by setting a monthly budget limit for
 the system."

tentative 5b. same as 5a but "a tenth of a cent for every patron…"
 instead of the $1 / 1000 version

We had played with phrases like "donate a tiny amount for *each* patron
 who supports the same projects" but I'm leaning toward just using
concrete example of the proposed actual pledge amount. That makes it far
 easier for people to get the actual pledge instead of us hinting at
 something while people wonder what it really is.

As for the budget part, similarly for being concrete, I'd rather go in the *direction* of stating explicitly what happens. Something like "you set a monthly budget limit, so a pledge that would go beyond your budget
 gets automatically put on hold." Except that brings up all sorts of
questions, so we can't say all that. But I want to at least hint at the
 clarity that you don't just hit a per-project budget and then stop
matching (because people who think that and then experience otherwise will be annoyed with us more than if we give them the right idea from
 the get-go).

One bit we had that I like for consideration still: "You choose projects
 to support, and make a pledge…"

 Here is a new take:
 * being discrete
 * visualizing
 * working with contrast

 my tentative 5c.
   Patrons pledge *only one 10th of a cent*!!...
   – but – for *every* other patron of a project.

   A group of 10 agrees on paying *a cent each*!!...
   – but – A *crowd* of 1000 already agrees to pay a dollar each.

   When a crowd gets too big for you - step back any time.

I like the concreteness of $1 for every 1000 patrons, but I'm concerned
that it is easily misunderstood as meaning you donate zero until there
are 1000 patrons, then $1 until there are 2000 patrons, then $2, etc.
But I like that it's easier to relate to than a tenth of a cent. Maybe
"1 cent for every 10 patrons" would be a happy medium here? That's
arguably more accurate since of course we can't actually charge people
in tenths of a cent increments.

I actually had this same thought, when I was looking at the dashboard and thinking that it's kind of odd to display the pledge level as .5 cents and the project income as 2.5 cents, when actually at that level no crowdmatch will happen.

It's off-topic for this discussion, but **IFF** it simplifies the code, we could consider making the mechanism actually function in discrete 1 cent intervals.

Otherwise, 5a seems a bit wordy and complex, including the switch into
first person. Here's one possible revision, with the "For example"
sentence being optional, but helpful if it can fit I think:

tentative 5d. "First you set an overall monthly budget. Then, for each project you want to support, you pledge to donate 1 cent per month for every 10 patrons who support that same project with you, as long as this fits within your budget. For example, if a project you support has 1,000 patrons next month, your donation will be $1."

tentative 6a. "We call this "crowdmatching", and with this system, our support grows together and is directed towards the most promising projects."

 tentative 6b. "This process, which we call *crowdmatching*, builds
 consensus and directs support to the most promising projects."

tentative 6c. This *crowdmatching* approach means that all the patrons of a project reinforce each other, and it naturally builds consensus,
 directing our support to the most promising projects."

6c is longer and wordier, but I like the feel and it really draws out
 the feel and meaning the right way to me.

 my tentative 6d.
   We call this "crowdmatching"; it is a network effect that reaches
   consensus on what we support.

I think we should emphasize the new / innovative aspect, so how about:

Agreed that we should emphasize this. Either by mentioning crowdmatching above, or by moving the "innovative" part from above down here.

tentative 6e: "With this new approach to crowdfunding, which we call *crowdmatching*, all the patrons of a project reinforce each other, naturally building consensus and helping everyone to support the most promising projects."

(I think it may be worth explicitly saying that crowdmatching is a form of crowdfunding, to ensure that people don't just mishear crowdmatching
as crowdmatching and miss the key newness of what we're doing.)

 FINAL 7. Join us in clearing the path to a free and open future!

Note: We can *maybe* tweak the FINAL lines before the actual production is done but I don't want to discuss them until all lines are in the same
 candidate-for-final state.

I think discussing this in the group was way more productive than I ever
 can be alone. Hoping any of my takes help making a step forward...

I agree the live discussion was good. I wonder if we could wrap this up
in Monday's meeting?

Design mailing list

Design mailing list

Reply via email to