Chat exchange with David for reference, gives good perspective: David: tentatively fine with the "$/patron" formulation, although my objections would be: 1) not as much clarity as to what the default should be 2) we need to somehow have a cut-off for what the minimum is
Aaron: I agree with both concerns but don't see those as *new* to this change [addendum from chat: the "cut off" for shares wasn't clear, and what the default should be is a challenge regardless of the logarithmic extra matching] David: oh, also I think this makes the duplicate account issue worse not better Aaron: oh, absolutely, the point wasn't that it improves the duplicate account issue, it was that this trade-off seems worthwhile, and there are other ways to address that speculative concern David: well, my idea about "share" (and I don't think we ever made this clear enough)... was that 1 is "doing my share" (doing my part). That's what I was looking for in the term. Aaron: I agree. It happens that this is unchanged in that we can still say that the minimum pledge is "you are a patron" (doing your part) David: sure Aaron: I agree that "I pledged 5 shares" can sound like "I'm covering the donations of 5 people" which makes *some* sense but it was just a wicked problem designing for this and getting it across. Incidentally, when I really focused on this today, I started off kinda defending the logarithm, and then Bryan ended up *defending* the logarithm, and I found myself more and more feeling like it makes sense in principle, we all seem to agree about that nothing about the theoretical behavior is better removing it, but the *practical* issue of presentation and implementation… so much cleans up by removing it David Thomas I think the "shares/parts" question is actually separate from the logarithm or rather, trying to express things without "shares" and with the logarithm is likely to seem too complicated Aaron: I still think it is *essential* to let people pledge extra *and* we can discuss it as "going beyond your share, contributing extra" etc, and removing the logarithm allows "shares" to be simpler if we wanted to keep that wording David: yeah, don't feel strongly about it, just that I think the two should probably be considered separately. I think the simplification is *likely* the right way to go Aaron: my feeling right now is that we should build the working prototype without the logarithm so that we can get to launch, Robert (our lead designer guy) can work out the best foundation prototype for presentation, and we can later see whether the logarithm (or the word "share") can be made to fit David: sure Aaron: if we can have a simpler foundation and fit things back in, then they fit, and if not, maybe they should stay out David: once we get some mindshare around the current approach, adding the logarithm back in might actually be easier Aaron: indeed On 05/30/2015 10:36 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > So, along with other folks in the community questioning things and > thinking about design, I've continued to butt up against the complexity > of explaining "shares" and what different pledge levels mean. > > I don't think we should completely shy away from promoting new > unfamiliar ideas, but we need to be able to be understandable. We need > at least that if someone else takes the time to understand us well, they > will generally be capable of explaining us effectively to others. And we > need the interface to be understandable and clear. > > There are two reasons that I wanted the whole logarithmic matching of > extra "shares". 1. To avoid the awkwardness in someone realizing that > they count double if they open two separate accounts (better to count > them as extra when they pledge extra from the one account, although that > *has* to taper so things aren't volatile and susceptible to dramatic > manipulation). 2. To encourage people to pledge extra (although that was > confusing given that we want people to understand the matching idea and > not pledge higher than actually makes sense). > > I found that the cleanest, clearest way to express pledging is: > > "I pledge 0.1¢ per patron" or "I pledge 1.4¢ per patron" etc. > > That brings to mind the image of thinking about all the other patrons > and how you are connected to them and we are working together. We > obviously show the total number of patrons. > > Now, if your actual donation is different than your pledge amount * > number of patrons, that's confusing. Abstracting it away to "shares" > just makes it even more opaque. > > It was a long process of pushing to keep the logarithm before I've come > to accept that it makes sense to drop it. Without the extra matching, we > have a simpler system, just a step or two removed from what people are > already familiar with. It still will take some getting used to, but it > will be *less* complexity in design, in coding, in presentation, etc. > Everything will be more comfortable without it. There will be no > logarithm to explain. > > What about the two issues mentioned above? > > Well, the one about duplicate accounts was speculative. We have other > ways to discourage that, such as checking different financial > information. Also, setting up an account is a bit too complex to easily > duplicate. The worst case scenario of having some duplicate accounts > isn't fatal. Maybe it's fine enough for someone to have a couple > accounts which is almost like saying you sponsor your kid or neighbor > and have an account in their name. > > As for encouraging larger donations within reason: giving more still > gives extra to the project, and it still is part of the network effect > here in that it provides additional matching to others. The message is: > "pledge more so that you provide even stronger incentive for others to > come help (because you give that much more when they join)." > > At any rate, we can always bring the logarithm back in. We're only > prototyping at this point. Bringing it back after launch would be much > harder but not impossible. > > I think, realistically, dropping it will make our launch more successful > and improve all our design and make everything easier and simpler with > little loss. > > Obviously, everyone is welcome to weigh in on this and share thoughts > and concerns. > > Cheers, > Aaron > -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
