35 ms·
The winner gets paid, sure, but the "losers" get nothing for their time.
by limedaring 16y ago
The winner gets paid, sure, but the "losers" get nothing for their time.
- mfukar 16y agoWhich is exactly what would've happened if the "winner" was hired in the first place without crowdsourcing. What's your point?
- lwhi 16y agoNo it isn't. You have 99 people enter a crowdsourcing 'contest'. One design gets picked - and that person is paid. 98 people have worked on the project for nothing; which wouldn't be the case if the winner was hired in the first place.
- mfukar 16y agoSo, are you pleading for the designers' "fear" of this crowdsourcing trend, a fear based on their time being wasted because designs from other people may be better (for any subjective definition of the term)? Are you honestly saying with a straight face that designers should be awarded for any and all their efforts regardless of the quality of their work? I'm sorry, but they should just suck it up and change. Like the world around them is. PS: I don't remember the last time that people rewarded me or anybody else just for trying. Perhaps kindergarten, but I have no clear recollections of the daily scrums in there.
- lwhi 16y agoNo. I'm not suggesting that all participants should be paid. I'm suggesting that the model put forth by crowdsourcing is ill-thought out and unfair. "[..] they should just suck it up and change. Like the world around them is." I completely disagree. People who exploit others for their own personal gain should always be challenged.