3 ms·

Completely disagree. I want to be able to pay more for quality content and pay less for buzzfeed articles. I want content creators to be able to charge based o

Completely disagree. I want to be able to pay more for quality content and pay less for buzzfeed articles. I want content creators to be able to charge based on the the content they are producing. I prefer a world where I can stop in a fine dining restaurant or a fast-food place, get the experience I want and be charged appropriately. I don't want a top of the line steak-house to have to find a way to serve my meal, while only receiving McDonald's priced payments. That's the problem with the current web.

kelnos 9y ago
Agreed. As long as it's clear what I'm going to pay before I open each article, I have no problem paying more for an article from a trusted news source than from a tabloid.
seanp2k2 9y ago
Where are the steakhouses? That's my problem with the current state of the paid content web; it seems to be a race to the bottom, with few exceptions (and the exceptions in my experience seem to be mostly enthusiasts doing it not for a living).
- RunawayGalaxy 9y ago
  Is it not the point that this system will incentivize better content by allowing creators to charge what the market is willing to pay for content?
omarforgotpwd 9y ago
Having choices is all well and good, but I worry that making the pricing hard to predict will reduce the reach of this feature. But I guess they are only expecting a small subset of users to use it anyway. Why not let the users choose what they want to pay? Because Google needs this to be net-positive for their revenue, but it would be a much better web if there was some kind of mechanism to automatically give small amounts of money (say 1/10th of a cent per page view) to site owners.
mcintyre1994 9y ago
It's interesting you mention Buzzfeed because actually this price per page per site model doesn't work for them, at all - you'd need to be even more granular. They have both high quality journalistic content and those viral listicles all on buzzfeed.com - it'd be impossible to use a flat price per page sensibly.

kelnos 9y ago

Agreed. As long as it's clear what I'm going to pay before I open each article, I have no problem paying more for an article from a trusted news source than from a tabloid.

seanp2k2 9y ago

Where are the steakhouses? That's my problem with the current state of the paid content web; it seems to be a race to the bottom, with few exceptions (and the exceptions in my experience seem to be mostly enthusiasts doing it not for a living).

RunawayGalaxy 9y ago
Is it not the point that this system will incentivize better content by allowing creators to charge what the market is willing to pay for content?

omarforgotpwd 9y ago

Having choices is all well and good, but I worry that making the pricing hard to predict will reduce the reach of this feature. But I guess they are only expecting a small subset of users to use it anyway. Why not let the users choose what they want to pay? Because Google needs this to be net-positive for their revenue, but it would be a much better web if there was some kind of mechanism to automatically give small amounts of money (say 1/10th of a cent per page view) to site owners.

mcintyre1994 9y ago

It's interesting you mention Buzzfeed because actually this price per page per site model doesn't work for them, at all - you'd need to be even more granular. They have both high quality journalistic content and those viral listicles all on buzzfeed.com - it'd be impossible to use a flat price per page sensibly.