4 ms·

What I said was silly if you take the 0th approximation in logic. Companies run growth/marketing tests all the time. It's not unreasonable to assume this is o

What I said was silly if you take the 0th approximation in logic. Companies run growth/marketing tests all the time. It's not unreasonable to assume this is one of them. If they can make the case that prodding with dollars will incite users to come back to the platform to get their genuine questions answered, then this is worth it. What the author is doing is gaming the system and taking away the full intent of the hypothetical test/growth strategy. He is doing the equivalent of opening up a merchant account to collect 5% credit card reward cash back and paying 3% in merchant fees to net a 2% difference. Obviously the intent of the credit card company wasn't to get their raw transaction numbers up- it was to incite new and genuine transactions onto their card. Similarly, Quora, while may want to get their raw numbers of questions up, they wanted to get this goal achieved while preserving the integrity of their platform via genuine content. What's silly about that?

brazzy 7y ago
> What I said was silly if you take the 0th approximation in logic. No. What you said was completely nonsensical. > If they can make the case that prodding with dollars will incite users to come back to the platform to get their genuine questions answered, then this is worth it. The only case anyone who knows how humans work can make in good faith is that prodding with dollars will incite users to write more questions. They can install other mechanisms to allow only questions that fit some criteria, but "genuine" is a completely idiotic one when you're already paying money. > What the author is doing is gaming the system and taking away the full intent of the hypothetical test/growth strategy. No. There is exactly zero indication that he was doing that. He did exactly what their strategy incentivized: he wrote more questions. It's possible that they did not meet some crtieria they want met, but then they need to publish those criteria and tell people that not meeting those is the reason for a ban. > He is doing the equivalent of opening up a merchant account to collect 5% credit card reward cash back and paying 3% in merchant fees to net a 2% difference. Obviously the intent of the credit card company wasn't to get their raw transaction numbers up- it was to incite new and genuine transactions onto their card. That meaningless word "genuine" again. The example is also really bad because the credit card company would lose 2% on every transaction anyway - completely independant whether it's "genuine" or not. Not something they're going to do to begin with. > Similarly, Quora, while may want to get their raw numbers of questions up, they wanted to get this goal achieved while preserving the integrity of their platform via genuine content. Quora cares jack shit about "genuine", or about "integrity", for that matter. They want to make money via ads. So they're willing to essentially pay $X to get a question that will bring in $X+Y worth of ad views. And in fact the "partner program" UI looks like that is factored in - there is no fixed value of a question, it seems to vary strongly with the number of views - and that heavily implies that the payouts are actually based on generated ad revenue. And that makes it extremely scammy to tell someone they've "earned" (the actual wording they use) thousands of dollars for over a month, and then suddenly pull the rug and say "you've banned and we won't pay out the money you earned". There elephant in the room here is ad clicking fraud. I'm willing to bet that what really happened is that Quora is running some kind of click fraud detection system which determined that ad clicks for the author's questions had some kind of suspicious pattern and flagged him as fraudulent. Now it's possible that he was running some kind of bot net to click ads on his own questions, in which case he certainly deserves to get banned, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the "genuineness" of the questions, but rather that of the ad clicks. More likely, it was simply a false positive. And there Quora support really should be more helpful and transparent.
xnyan 7y ago
You claim that the author is gaming the system, then go own without backing up that assertation. Are you saying that because Quora said it was so, that it must be true? Quora offered money for questions, OP provided...questions for money. If they were spam questions, then can him. They quantity is irrelevant unless it was part of the terms of service.

brazzy 7y ago

> What I said was silly if you take the 0th approximation in logic. No. What you said was completely nonsensical. > If they can make the case that prodding with dollars will incite users to come back to the platform to get their genuine questions answered, then this is worth it. The only case anyone who knows how humans work can make in good faith is that prodding with dollars will incite users to write more questions. They can install other mechanisms to allow only questions that fit some criteria, but "genuine" is a completely idiotic one when you're already paying money. > What the author is doing is gaming the system and taking away the full intent of the hypothetical test/growth strategy. No. There is exactly zero indication that he was doing that. He did exactly what their strategy incentivized: he wrote more questions. It's possible that they did not meet some crtieria they want met, but then they need to publish those criteria and tell people that not meeting those is the reason for a ban. > He is doing the equivalent of opening up a merchant account to collect 5% credit card reward cash back and paying 3% in merchant fees to net a 2% difference. Obviously the intent of the credit card company wasn't to get their raw transaction numbers up- it was to incite new and genuine transactions onto their card. That meaningless word "genuine" again. The example is also really bad because the credit card company would lose 2% on every transaction anyway - completely independant whether it's "genuine" or not. Not something they're going to do to begin with. > Similarly, Quora, while may want to get their raw numbers of questions up, they wanted to get this goal achieved while preserving the integrity of their platform via genuine content. Quora cares jack shit about "genuine", or about "integrity", for that matter. They want to make money via ads. So they're willing to essentially pay $X to get a question that will bring in $X+Y worth of ad views. And in fact the "partner program" UI looks like that is factored in - there is no fixed value of a question, it seems to vary strongly with the number of views - and that heavily implies that the payouts are actually based on generated ad revenue. And that makes it extremely scammy to tell someone they've "earned" (the actual wording they use) thousands of dollars for over a month, and then suddenly pull the rug and say "you've banned and we won't pay out the money you earned". There elephant in the room here is ad clicking fraud. I'm willing to bet that what really happened is that Quora is running some kind of click fraud detection system which determined that ad clicks for the author's questions had some kind of suspicious pattern and flagged him as fraudulent. Now it's possible that he was running some kind of bot net to click ads on his own questions, in which case he certainly deserves to get banned, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the "genuineness" of the questions, but rather that of the ad clicks. More likely, it was simply a false positive. And there Quora support really should be more helpful and transparent.

xnyan 7y ago

You claim that the author is gaming the system, then go own without backing up that assertation. Are you saying that because Quora said it was so, that it must be true? Quora offered money for questions, OP provided...questions for money. If they were spam questions, then can him. They quantity is irrelevant unless it was part of the terms of service.