If the goal of listing out the worst-converting referrers was, at least partially, in order to shame the users of those sites into throwing Matt some money then

If the goal of listing out the worst-converting referrers was, at least partially, in order to shame the users of those sites into throwing Matt some money then it, uh, worked. I tossed him $10 -- not exactly a significant sum, but still > 0. Paying for content is weird. I don't have any ideological issue with it -- I spend a lot on eBooks, I shell out the monthly fee for Spotify, Hulu+, HBO Go, and a bunch of other things I'm probably forgetting. And yet -- while I'm confident I'm watching more TV + film, listening to more new music, and reading more books than I ever have before, I'm still paying less. Is that the way it should be, given that it's also a way better experience than it's ever been? I dunno. I think my tendency is to go with whatever is the easiest and of least fuss [^1] -- very rarely, this involves actually paying a specific dollar amount for a specific product. I hope things like Patreon and Contributor (https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/) continue to grow. I want a world where great content like Practical Typography can be supported with pure revenue, but that's never going to happen until both the UX and number of those revenue streams meet or exceed the convenience and ubiquity of advertisements. In the meantime, I encourage more great content creators to "guilt" me into giving them money. Given that I've grown comfortable with paying $12 for a cocktail [^2], I think I can grow comfortable with shelling out some cash for internet authors as well. -- [^1]: I suspect this is a habit shared by most HN'ers. [^2]: I mean, only so comfortable. But Canon is so good.