4 ms·

I'm not sure I agree. Stackoverflow pays $0/h and attracts great answers and OSS pays $0/h and attracts great developers.

debaserab2 6y ago
> Stackoverflow pays $0/h and attracts great answers Eh...
xboxnolifes 6y ago
Covered > Free contribution is rewarding as a means of helping
GVIrish 6y ago
This is true, but it illustrates a key dynamic. For most people, as soon as you put a dollar value on a task that someone may have done for free or for fun, you have now fundamentally changed that relationship. If someone is doing something for only the intrinsic motivation, putting a dollar value on it changes it to an economic calculation. The person may still do it for money, but they're more likely to only do a level of effort commensurate to the economic reward. Whereas if they're doing things for intrinsic reasons they may be willing to do more work. There are a couple of behavioral economics experiments that bear this out. The Soma Experiment from the 70's gave participants a puzzle game to solve, and measured how long they tried to solve it. One group of participants was paid for their time, the other wasn't. The paid group on average spent less time trying to solve the puzzle than the group that wasn't paid. There are a couple of other experiments in that vein, but the common thread is that intrinsic motivation can be more powerful than economic rewards in multiple contexts. So someone might be willing to contribute some code to OSS for free, but if you ask them to develop some code for $30/hr they might pass.
- 6510 6y ago
  They pass then everyone else is unwilling to do anything for free ever again.
armadsen 6y ago
Yep, and I happily spend a fair amount of my free time working on open source, as well as personal projects that I don't make any money from. I'm also currently helping a friend of mine learn to code just for fun and to give back. But when I do contract work, I expect to be paid well. If you said, "well, I'll pay you $10 / hour, and that's way better than what you get for this open source you work on!", I'd not only not do the job, I'd be insulted.
- gowld 6y ago
  "$10/hr to do whatever I want" is more than I get now. I'll accept gladly. Doing whatever you want costs $150/hr".
dev_tty01 6y ago
Stackoverflow is both asynchronous and asymmetrical. The former lets the dev answer when convenient. The latter means the dev knows that their time is being multiplied and potentially lending help to large numbers of other devs over a large period of time. That is a compelling idea. A phone call is one-to-one and inconvenient. $45/hour is also hugely underpaid in the US at least. So, the proposed system is underpaid in both $$ and personal satisfaction.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I wonder if OP's product would work better if it was more like StackExchange bounties. Post a question alongside a non-refundable dollar amount. When someone posts an answer that solves your problem, you can award them the bounty. If no answers are accepted after a reasonable amount of time, the bounty is forfeited. This setup contains risks for both the asker and the developer, but I think they're balanced pretty well, and the incentives are set up correctly.

debaserab2 6y ago

> Stackoverflow pays $0/h and attracts great answers Eh...

xboxnolifes 6y ago

Covered > Free contribution is rewarding as a means of helping

GVIrish 6y ago

This is true, but it illustrates a key dynamic. For most people, as soon as you put a dollar value on a task that someone may have done for free or for fun, you have now fundamentally changed that relationship. If someone is doing something for only the intrinsic motivation, putting a dollar value on it changes it to an economic calculation. The person may still do it for money, but they're more likely to only do a level of effort commensurate to the economic reward. Whereas if they're doing things for intrinsic reasons they may be willing to do more work. There are a couple of behavioral economics experiments that bear this out. The Soma Experiment from the 70's gave participants a puzzle game to solve, and measured how long they tried to solve it. One group of participants was paid for their time, the other wasn't. The paid group on average spent less time trying to solve the puzzle than the group that wasn't paid. There are a couple of other experiments in that vein, but the common thread is that intrinsic motivation can be more powerful than economic rewards in multiple contexts. So someone might be willing to contribute some code to OSS for free, but if you ask them to develop some code for $30/hr they might pass.

6510 6y ago
They pass then everyone else is unwilling to do anything for free ever again.

armadsen 6y ago

Yep, and I happily spend a fair amount of my free time working on open source, as well as personal projects that I don't make any money from. I'm also currently helping a friend of mine learn to code just for fun and to give back. But when I do contract work, I expect to be paid well. If you said, "well, I'll pay you $10 / hour, and that's way better than what you get for this open source you work on!", I'd not only not do the job, I'd be insulted.

gowld 6y ago
"$10/hr to do whatever I want" is more than I get now. I'll accept gladly. Doing whatever you want costs $150/hr".

dev_tty01 6y ago

Stackoverflow is both asynchronous and asymmetrical. The former lets the dev answer when convenient. The latter means the dev knows that their time is being multiplied and potentially lending help to large numbers of other devs over a large period of time. That is a compelling idea. A phone call is one-to-one and inconvenient. $45/hour is also hugely underpaid in the US at least. So, the proposed system is underpaid in both $$ and personal satisfaction.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I wonder if OP's product would work better if it was more like StackExchange bounties. Post a question alongside a non-refundable dollar amount. When someone posts an answer that solves your problem, you can award them the bounty. If no answers are accepted after a reasonable amount of time, the bounty is forfeited. This setup contains risks for both the asker and the developer, but I think they're balanced pretty well, and the incentives are set up correctly.