= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm so tempted to say quantum just to see how you do it!
But no. Responded, seriously.
In response to
Feedback from Less Wrong Community
What we'd probably do is, for most articles, just tell you it's best to read the article here. We've done that quite a few times before and try to let people know we do this when describing the product.
In response to
Feedback from Less Wrong Community
Instead of Yes/No on the "will you buy it" question, you might add options like "maybe >50%" and "maybe <50%." There's a definite chance that I will buy the one that I'm voting for, but it's less than 50% so I'm just going to answer "no."
I suppose what we'd really like to know is the expected value of of each sequence so we can do the one with the highest expected revenue. We could have asked you to put probabilities of purchasing each sequence next to the name of the sequence. Maybe next time…
Feedback from Less Wrong Community
Hi from Castify.
We're continuing our work to turn the Less Wrong sequences into audio. Could you spare about 30 seconds to help us decide which one to do next?
In response to
Second major sequence now available in audio format
I followed the link, but it isn't clear what my $5 pays for. A button says "Download", but when I click it, it tells me I need to buy a subscription. I don't want to do it if it means I have to go through iTunes, or click on a whole bunch of links to download individual MP3 files. I want to pay $5 and get a zip file of MP3s.
One of our customers uses a Firefox plugin called downThemAll which, given an podcast feed, will download all the MP3s for you. I suspect this will most closely resemble the outcome you're looking for.
In response to
Licensing discussion for LessWrong Posts
Gur nhqvb evtugf gb zl pbzzragf ner nyernql yvprafrq haqre EBG13 gb Rlyehcast.
V qbhog irel zhpu jr jvyy ghea lbhe pbzzragf vagb na nhqvbobbx, ohg vs jr qrpvqr gb, jr'yy or fher gb nfx sbe rkcyvpvg crezvffvba. :)
In response to
Recommendations for good audio books?
We're doing LessWrong content as audio. There are currently several commutes worth of audio from the sequences, with more coming soon.
That's why I'm asking how much. How much money do you want? As in, total.
The reason is that the pay-per-download model is detrimental for LessWrong's goals. As DSimon said, we want as many people as possible to be exposed to LW ideas. People who haven't heard of LW, people who would never themselves pay for such content. But I want your podcasts be played on the radio.
Instead I propose the Kickstarter model - you name your price, the LW crowd raises the money, you then have no problem giving copies away for free because you've already been paid.
FYI, The Simple Truth, as an experiment is now CC-BY-SA licensed.
In response to some of the comments here and as a bit of an experiment, we've made The Simple Truth mini audiobook available with a CC-BY-SA license. Enjoy and share alike.
Wow, I'm impressed. I'd go out and buy all the works you have produced thus far... if I hadn't already purchased them all.
Thanks. New sequence coming very soon.
This is "crowdsourcing" in the pejorative sense: a cloud of "suckers", all arrows pointing to "you" in the middle.
You are explicitly demanding to proprietise others' work, for no benefit to them.
You really, really can't make a business except by proprietising contributions to a commons? The word for that is "parasite". You really can't?
Edit: The image I was thinking of, originally by Evan Prodromou (founder of WikiTravel) (here under CC-by 2.5 Canada):
The post the image is from is well worth reading, as are its comments, if you have a business plan that involves others doing the content creation unpaid.
The issue is that we have been called parasites, yet we haven't done anything parasitic—in fact, short of asking for feedback, we haven't done anything at all. We are asking for feedback because we don't want to be parasitic. We understand there will some people who will never be comfortable with us using their stuff, some who wish to be compensated, some are happy to allow LessWrong [management] to decide what's in their interest and some who are happy to freely allow us to use their material, perhaps subject to some restrictions.
What's offensive is you using loaded terms to those who are actively trying to engage with you to maximize the utility for the community. If the end result is that there are no terms beneficial to both us and the community, so be it. The premise that we'd like to use your stuff with no benefit to you is incorrect. We would rather not pursue our business model than be parasites.
That was why we created this discussion in the first place.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Thanks everyone. How to Actually Change Your Mind up next.